| > You phrased this wrong. ...some small group .... try to co-opt everyone else's resources using government power? My whole point was that a society occasionally does, in aggregate, feel it needs to do something. If you're going to insist that it's only ever a minority imposing their will over everyone, then there is no point in further discussion. > And somehow, the "something needs to get done, so let's get it done" methodology ended up killing [far too many]...and leading to .... Jim Crow. You seem to have forgotten the context - I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war, while the rest of the world managed to deal with it both faster and with a lot less bloodshed. > A consensus that is based on flawed climate models that do not make correct predictions, and economic numbers based on no predictive power whatsoever. Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone, is both a demonstration of the concept in question AND somewhat laughable considering your opinions on a minority forcing suffering upon the majority. > If everybody else has a consensus that we should all shoot ourselves in the foot, should the US follow it? Another straw man - no one is saying that. If the world thought it was dumb to shoot yourself in the foot, would you ignore them? One of these two scenarios is happening. > Hopefully I've done the same. I would say yes. |
Perhaps, but neither of your examples show that. They just show a portion of society feeling the need to do something and imposing it on everybody else.
> I was demonstrating how the American refusal to cooperate led to a civil war
Yes, exactly: refusal to cooperate, according to my definition of cooperate--work together to achieve a common goal--because the American abolitionists had a flawed concept of "cooperate". The British were willing to cooperate (in my sense) with the slaveowners, by buying the slaves' freedom, in order to achieve the common goal of avoiding civil war. The American abolitionists, because the very thought of cooperating (in my sense) with slaveowners gave them apoplexy, refused to consider any such alternative.
But with your definition of "cooperate", the abolitionists were doing it right--that's my point. What happened in the US is what happens when your version of "cooperate"--feel you need to do something and just make everybody do it--is working.
> Your assertion that your conclusion is somehow more valid that that of, well, just about everyone
Is based on the very simple and common sense criterion of predictive power. Whereas yours is based on an apparent mystical belief that if enough people agree with something, it must be right. You have offered no other argument.
> no one is saying that
Yes, they are. The rest of the world is saying that everyone should spend huge amounts of money on the Paris agreement, just like Kyoto before it, even though everyone admits that it will have negligible impact on the climate. That is shooting yourself in the foot.