So, explain then please: what form of government does Brittain have, or the Netherlands, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway. They cannot be republics, as they have a hereditary head of state. As per your logic they can't be democracies as 'representative democracy' is the same as 'partial democracy' and is a contradiction in terms. Under what type of government do I live? A monarchy? And am I now to argue that a monarchy is preferable to a democracy?

Not really, There is typically a left/right divide, and there's a conservative/progressive divide, but no simple mapping as you sketch exists.

How come? If a bunch of people come together, they are a bunch of people. How do they suddenly lose rights? The fact is that corporations are not persons, they are owned by persons. Given a corporation a separate vote gives the owner a second vote. Give the corporation rights to bribe, and you give the owner the right to bribe. Walmart is not a person, it's the Waltons that run the show. Give Walmart a right, and it goes directly to the Waltons. They get that above and beyond the rights they have as US citizens. And that is undemocratic.

Nonsense. The US is the only country in the world where this weird construct of corporate personhood is used. Are you claiming there's no limited liability outside of the US?

Jesus was a hippie.

Many of the rich have inherited the money. I've worked with second generation rich: they are well-intended, but typically so involved with their lifestyle that work is merely a hobby. Third generation rich are 'old-money', i.e., aristocracy. No positive influence is to be expected from them. I.e., the rich are a diverse bunch. The ones that actually became rich are typically awesome. But the world is ruled by Paris Hilton.

Obviously the concept of a representative democracy (i.e., the form of government all western republics and monarchies have adopted) is still foreign to you.

And of course, no declaration of war was made. The US constitution had been superceded. By what exactly is left as an exercise to the reader.

Hi Stenvar, you sound like a rational person. Have you actually read this thread where people are completely and openly questioning global warming occurring, questioning the morals of the people involved in climate research, questioning antropogenic global warming, arguing that scientific research is a gravy train that keeps on running, forwarding a conspiracy theory that politicians and corporations worldwide have for the first time been able to collude globally, and generally display an attitude resembling young earth creationists and truthers? These are the denialists. You are the only one in this entire thread that argues an economic opposite viewpoint based on the scientific evidence we have so far. All 100 others are simply denying a problem exists. They are trying to further a political agenda by attacking the messenger, not the message. They are denialists and are not worth discussing.

But if you have a reasoned argument on what needs to be done w.r.t. AGW, why are you spreading lies about the facts of AGW? And if you're not actively spreading lies (as you don't seem to be at least in this post), why are you defending those that are? Claiming something isn't true because you fear what others will propose (not enforce, propose) to mitigate the fact is at best childish. In this case it's close to criminal.

Awesome, we give the US the property rights to the atmoshpere above the US. We'll fine the US for any effects that it spreads around it's any area it doesn't control. I think three trillion dollars per ppm CO2 would be nice thank you.

I'm absolutely convinced that AWG is true, but I am severly skeptical about the measures proposed in your message to have the desired effect. Unfortunately, the discussion about AWG completely dwarfs the discussion about what we can do to mitigate the effects. That is really what pisses me off. The AWG deniers are absolutely preventing a sane solution to even be discussed. It's infuriating.

Okay, so you are denying a fact because you don't like the way some people want to mitigate the effects of that fact. That's pretty mature, in line with putting fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalalala.

There's no 100% proof, sorry. There's 90% proof, there's 99% proof, there's 99.9% proof, there's 99.99% proof, etc. However, there's are no certainties, no 100% proof. Sorry. Try living in this world.

On another note, how much proof of of NOT crashing in the next plane do you accept as tolerable for taking said plane? You seem to argue for 0%: we need to be absolutely sure that we are crashing this plane before we refuse to take it.If we survive 1 in a 100 flights, we shouldn't complain. We need to be absolutely sure that we crash this plane before we try to do something about it.

Awesome. As long as I can kill everyone and their progeny if despite our efforts, temperatures rise by 3 degrees, I'm game.