Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Tubbsalot]

This is because the technology, more or less, is in it's infancy and such products will become cheaper once production methods have been improved and demand increases.

It's really not a matter of production methods, it's a matter of technology. Current solar panels employ large quantities of very rare, very expensive metals. The technology isn't going to be properly competitive for some time, and while we're approaching a commercial critical point, right now it really requires substantial government investment to make it viable for private entities to develop. Solar panels cost thousands of dollars even with subsidies halving the price.

Wind farms are pretty good, generally speaking, but good luck finding a place to build them without the locals bursting an artery, even if local conditions are suitable.

Electric cars are probably the closest we've got to a commercially viable product, but as long as they're powered by coal plants, they're not much of an improvement in terms of avoiding emissions.

The extreme right-wing in Israel don't make up more than 10% of the population, but they're the keystone that keeps the settlements being built in contravention of UN resolutions.

If recent polls are anything to go by, the majority of Israelis still support the incumbent government of Netanyahu and his coalition which have expressed support for settlements. They'd still win the votes necessary to govern after the legislative elections next year.

Yeah, but that's not the point - that fringe is the only significant group who have any interest in the settlements going ahead. Most of the rest of the population feels there are bigger things to worry about. But this 10% is largely responsible for keeping Netanyahu's government in power, so the government has to continue building the settlements.

Democratic shenanigans mean 10% of the population have forced his party into a position where it feels required to break international law to be elected. How much worse would it be with 33% instead? (Hint: it's far greater than 3.3x more.)

[Tubbsalot]

People are already taxed enough. I'm not paying any more taxes. People are so highly taxed in the U.S. it's bordering indentured servitude. You get stipends for food and housing.

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that you aren't taxed until, like, $40,000/yr or something? And then even when you start being taxed the maximum possible tax rate is, like, 40% for people making $500,000+? So worst case scenario, you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

[Zephie]

People are already taxed enough. I'm not paying any more taxes. People are so highly taxed in the U.S. it's bordering indentured servitude. You get stipends for food and housing.

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that you aren't taxed until, like, $40,000/yr or something? And then even when you start being taxed the maximum possible tax rate is, like, 40% for people making $500,000+? So worst case scenario, you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

With carbon taxes companies would offset the cost onto the customers.

[Tubbsalot]

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that you aren't taxed until, like, $40,000/yr or something? And then even when you start being taxed the maximum possible tax rate is, like, 40% for people making $500,000+? So worst case scenario, you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

With carbon taxes companies would offset the cost onto the customers.

Yes, resulting in an overall increase in your expenses of, like, 2%, if that. The main thing you'd see is a decent increase in the cost of your electricity.

In any case, the point is that sacrifices now prevent massive sacrifices down the line... better to lose 1% of your income now than all of your income in 40 years.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

With carbon taxes companies would offset the cost onto the customers.

Yes, resulting in an overall increase in your expenses of, like, 2%, if that. The main thing you'd see is a decent increase in the cost of your electricity.

In any case, the point is that sacrifices now prevent massive sacrifices down the line... better to lose 1% of your income now than all of your income in 40 years.

Heaven forbid this impacts on corporate profits to corporate shareholders as well as corporate executives. Screw the ordinary working pleb right?

[The Serbian Empire]

No, this is presuming that they are citizens of course. I only want to reserve the ability to disenfranchise for violent Communist revolutionaries and even then only after they make actions more than just writing it in some blog out there in some corner of the internet.

[Ragnarum]

Yes.

[Evil Lord Bane]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

Yeah...not a communist but nice try.

[Gauntleted Fist]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

What are those.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Electoral democracy is not a suicide pact, and it's certainly not an end in itself. Rather, it's a means to ensuring the well-being of humanity, and there should be no hesitation to set it aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end, just as we would set aside a hammer with no compunctions when it comes time to cut a plank in two.

If the climate change deniers continue with their willfull ignorance and obstructionism, well, we are not obligated to let them sacrifice all of humanity for their own short-term private interests. Our lives are more important than their oil revenues. If saving mankind requires removing their access to the political system, should we do it?

Ethically, I disagree- it's wrong to disenfranchise someone just because of their beliefs, in my opinion. But when it comes down to them threatening the survival of the human race...they shouldn't be given the "right" to do so.

[Aethelstania]

One of the most riduclous questions I've ever read. Someone disagree's with you or has a ridiculous viewpoint ergo they dont deserve the vote. Climate change deniers are a very clear minority and they are not preventing the survival of the human race 'why?' because everyone knows their nuts. Even if they did hold sway over the political process Id rather change their minds then stop them from voting which is evil and biggoted

[Zephie]

One of the most riduclous questions I've ever read. Someone disagree's with you or has a ridiculous viewpoint ergo they dont deserve the vote. Climate change deniers are a very clear minority and they are not preventing the survival of the human race 'why?' because everyone knows their nuts. Even if they did hold sway over the political process Id rather change their minds then stop them from voting which is evil and biggoted

The minority was clearly nuts when they thought the Earth wasn't flat, or the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. They also were clearly nuts when they found out heavier objects don't fall faster.

[LLAMAJOR]

Of course I'm not a democrat? Did you not actually read the first post--you know, the one where I explained that electoral democracy is not a first principle, not an end in itself, but a means to the freedom and well-being of mankind that we should not hesitate to set aside when it becomes a hindrance to that end just as we would a hammer when it comes time to cut a plank in two?

What is best for mankind? Who determines that? YOU? Hitler? the Papacy? Imams? or all of mankind?

[Galla-]

One of the most riduclous questions I've ever read. Someone disagree's with you or has a ridiculous viewpoint ergo they dont deserve the vote. Climate change deniers are a very clear minority and they are not preventing the survival of the human race 'why?' because everyone knows their nuts. Even if they did hold sway over the political process Id rather change their minds then stop them from voting which is evil and biggoted

The minority was clearly nuts when they thought the Earth wasn't flat, or the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. They also were clearly nuts when they found out heavier objects don't fall faster.

Show me a time when the majority of people believed this.

Probably pre-historical, but people've known the Earth to be round since the time of the Delian League, possibly even earlier.

[Free Soviets]

depends on the issue. in the case of climate change, the people to be excluded from power are those that deny it exists, deny that humans are the cause, or deny the expected effects without the expertise to do so legitimately.

as for who gets to decide, presumably anybody. just as long as they've got a very compelling argument for it, such that they could rationally persuade enough of the power centers of society that it is literally necessary for the continued survival of that society in a form worth preserving.

There is absolutely no rational argument for disenfranchising people based on a single belief they hold. If the belief is clearly false, and the issue is a matter of life and death, then the rest of the population will just outvote the idiots, thus making it unnecessary to disenfranchise them.

this is my hope as well. but the question is, what if the majority of the population are idiots? what if the minority is significant enough to block all action anyways? what then?

are we obligated by democracy to die because a head count has the idiots holding enough power to kill us all?

It's worth noting that there are so many other issues that people take into consideration when voting, there is no guarantee that their position on climate change will even affect how they vote. If someone does not believe in climate change, but thinks dependence on foreign oil is dangerous, air pollution is bad for our health when we breathe it in, etc., then they will probably vote for candidates who support alternative energy. If someone is really preoccupied with gay marriage and gun control, and bases all their voting decisions on those two issues, then their beliefs about climate change are kind of irrelevant.

A more effective method of keeping dangerous ideas out of government is to break up organizations that promote them. For example, let us Nazis keep our votes, but break up the neo-Nazi hate groups. It's much easier to break up an organization than it is to track down every individual that holds a belief. Regulating the media would also work. Not saying I want tons of censorship or anything, just saying it would be a more efficient way of controlling the outcome of elections.

this is more to the point, i think. it would be too much work to hunt down voters based on individual beliefs and personally exclude them from voting. which is why i myself propose the creation of a climate change agency that has broad authority to get shit done, has only limited democratic accountability, and has most of its members are chosen directly from and by experts. but in order to get such a thing to work in the US, we have to limit the ability of republicans and coal-state democrats to affect it - in order to get it created any time in the foreseeable future, we have to do it without congress. and after it exists, we have to cordon it off from political meddling.

[Free Soviets]

also, have any democratic purists directly addressed the 'asteroid headed to earth, significant part of public refuses to believe it' scenario?

[Divair]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

Who are these "communist God-Masters" and why are they relevant?

[Raeyh]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

Who are these "communist God-Masters" and why are they relevant?

For some reason, the only thing I could think of is He-Man.

[Mavorpen]

No, only people who think others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them, should be disenfranchised. Then you can go back to your communist God-Masters and tell them you failed.

Who are these "communist God-Masters" and why are they relevant?

God fucking dammit, another one. Can't these guys let us live in peace?

[Anacasppia]

Doesn't this infringe upon political freedoms/civil liberties, and the constitution in the case of America?

Oh wells, but I've never really found the populace in general or the politicians they elect to be threatening to the environment. Its more of, they don't seem to give much of a damn for the environment, like its rarely on the agenda. Under the radar, so to speak.

Also, I'd think awareness of climate change/environmental issues is somewhat lacking in America. Taking action to build awareness is way more agreeable than disenfranchising any persons.

[Free Soviets]

Also, I'd think awareness of climate change/environmental issues is somewhat lacking in America. Taking action to build awareness is way more agreeable than disenfranchising any persons.

small problem. education doesn't help matters. it makes it worse.
the more educated the conservative american, the more vehemently they deny climate change.

[Mavorpen]

Also, I'd think awareness of climate change/environmental issues is somewhat lacking in America. Taking action to build awareness is way more agreeable than disenfranchising any persons.

small problem. education doesn't help matters. it makes it worse.
the more educated the conservative american, the more vehemently they deny climate change.

Exactly. We need to scream, "America is the best! China is spending more in clean energy! We can't be the best if we aren't spending the most!"

[Divair]

Also, I'd think awareness of climate change/environmental issues is somewhat lacking in America. Taking action to build awareness is way more agreeable than disenfranchising any persons.

small problem. education doesn't help matters. it makes it worse.
the more educated the conservative american, the more vehemently they deny climate change.

What the fuck.

[Raeyh]

small problem. education doesn't help matters. it makes it worse.
the more educated the conservative american, the more vehemently they deny climate change.

What the fuck.

It's not that surprising. One of my science teachers in high school was a strong climate change skeptic. I'm sure there are plenty more.