What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Tim Lutz wrote: Living in Europe must suck with all those adolescent socialists everywhere.

This country is populated by people who fled Europe. The Mediterranean countries are floundering. Even their biggest economies never recovered from the Great Recession. So why the fuck do you people want to emulate them? Feels is a dumbass reason. If you dont like having to work i am under no obligation to pull your slack. europeansnapshot.com

According to American Wind Energy Association there are 52,000 turbines installed in the US.

Wind energy provides 4.4% of US electric use while natural gas provides 27%.

From what I've seen, a wind turbine disturbs the same amount of area as a well pad, and they both require access roads for maintenance.

For wind to meet our needs, 1,300,000 turbines would be required with current technology. That's a great deal of disturbance to the land. And not to mention how many birds are killed by turbines.

I oppose any wind farm development on pristine land (or solar for that matter). Unlike fossil fuels, the wind blows everywhere. Yes, it is windier in some places than others and is the preferred location for wind farms.

However, I think it would be best to put the turbines in our cities or along our roads. Same goes for solar - build them where we have already disturbed the land. This has the added benefit of putting the impact of our use of energy in plain sight - no more NIMBYs. Perhaps people would conserve more in this case.

Bernie and Hillary (and the Repubs) support renewables. However, renewables are not the panacea they are claimed to be - they too cause significant damage to the environment.

Mike Lane wrote: This country is populated by people who fled Europe. The Mediterranean countries are floundering. Even their biggest economies never recovered from the Great Recession. So why the fuck do you people want to emulate them? Feels is a dumbass reason. europeansnapshot.com

Thats about as thoughtful and intellectually honest as asking why the fuck you, as a libertarian, would want to emulate somalia where all citizens are free of government encumbrances.

Somalia has no rule of law. We do. Fail.
What I advocate for is simply removing the element of force/violence/coercion from how we address the needs of society. How do you have a problem with that?

Tim, those countries ain't happy these days with the price of oil where it is :)

How bout China? Communist and capitalism! What's not to love?

Bill Kirby wrote:Tim, those countries ain't happy these days with the price of oil where it is :) How bout China? Communist and capitalism! What's not to love?

Denmark, oil?? Netherlands, oil? Switzerland, oil? what? Denmarks biggest energy export is wind.

Countries in the world that tend to have a higher standard of living (compared to US) and higher quality of life by most measures tend to be more socialist countries. Also, many countries with much worse standards of living and quality of life are socialist.

I just don’t see why it is completely unreasonable to take some lessons from those that have done it right and see if it could work here. And look at countries where it hasn’t worked and avoid those mistakes.

Perhaps surprisingly to many people on here, citizens of those socialist countries with higher standards of living than the US tend to enjoy more freedom and less corruption than we do here in the United States. So surely we can learn something........

jason.cre wrote: Denmark, oil?? Netherlands, oil? Switzerland, oil? what? Denmarks biggest energy export is wind. Countries in the world that tend to have a higher standard of living (compared to US) and higher quality of life by most measures tend to be more socialist countries. Also, many countries with much worse standards of living and quality of life are socialist. I just don’t see why it is completely unreasonable to take some lessons from those that have done it right and see if it could work here. And look at countries where it hasn’t worked and avoid those mistakes.

Every economy is hurting from the price of oil plumping.

Speaking of Denmark, they don't have a minimum wage right?

Bill Kirby wrote: Every economy is hurting from the price of oil plumping. Speaking of Denmark, they don't have a minimum wage right?

Effectively they do. When I lived there it was $20 per hour. With the exchange its probably gone down a bit.

jason.cre wrote: Effectively they do. When I lived there it was $20 per hour. With the exchange its probably gone down a bit.

By effectively you mean the government wasn't involved? It hasn't gone down.

Tim,

I'm happy to pay more taxes a year than your yearly salary. That's the third time you've called me fox watching neo con. You apologized for it twice. How bout one more time? I'll say it again I'm not arguing for or against.. Just asking questions and making observations.

Tim Lutz wrote: Americans aren't used to listening to reason. Bernie has been trying this 'reason' thing and look at his poll numbers.

I can't for the life of me figure out why 95% of voters don't vote for Bernie Sanders. The only group that wouldn't see a better life would be households making above $250k. Mind boggling

Actual question (not trying to come of as snarky or rhetorical) to all the libertarians in this thread:

Do you believe that it is truly possible to live your life without imposing some of the choices you make on to others, or having others' choices imposed upon you?

For example: many libertarians I have talked to are opposed to mandatory yearly vehicle inspections because they believe they should have the freedom to endanger themselves if that is their choice. They do not want others to force them to pay for something if they themselves do not deem it worthy of their time/money. Fair enough, but do you believe that your choice to drive an unsafe vehicle does not unduly impose danger you have created onto others without their consent? To me, it seems that if I drive a vehicle whose tires are bare and brakes worn paper thin, I am imposing my choice to take the risk onto other drivers. I am not simply putting myself in danger, I am putting others in danger as well without their consent in the matter; which, by libertarian rules, is wrong. I do not understand this line of thought, but very much wish to.

Quinn Baker wrote:Actual question (not trying to come of as snarky or rhetorical) to all the libertarians in this thread: Do you believe that it is truly possible to live your life without imposing some of the choices you make on to others, or having others' choices imposed upon you? For example: many libertarians I have talked to are opposed to mandatory yearly vehicle inspections because they believe they should have the freedom to endanger themselves if that is their choice. They do not want others to force them to pay for something if they themselves do not deem it worthy of their time/money. Fair enough, but do you believe that your choice to drive an unsafe vehicle does not unduly impose danger you have created onto others without their consent? To me, it seems that if I drive a vehicle whose tires are bare and brakes worn paper thin, I am imposing my choice to take the risk onto other drivers. I am not simply putting myself in danger, I am putting others in danger as well without their consent in the matter; which, by libertarian rules, is wrong. I do not understand this line of thought, but very much wish to.

How bout the fact that no regulation almost collapsed the global economy?

Can you imagine what no environmental regulations would smell like?

Bill Kirby wrote: How bout the fact that no regulation almost collapsed the global economy? Can you imagine what no environmental regulations would smell like?

If you are arguing in favor of higher regulations, I doubt my post was addressing you lol.

Tim Lutz wrote: huh?

Ok maybe I'm wrong about the name calling. I went back and looked. I guess my memory and what's written down are at odds with each other.. Sorry if you never called me a faux news watching something something and took it back.

Quinn Baker wrote: If you are arguing in favor of higher regulations, I doubt my post was addressing you lol.

Just making your point stronger.

In favor, in favor? I love no regulations!! So much money to be made. Let Ted Cruz be President. I don't have any kids. I don't worry what no regulations will do to the environment.

Bill Kirby wrote: By effectively you mean the government wasn't involved? It hasn't gone down.

Sure great lets look at that. Im not dogmatic or ideological. We have some problems in the country, and other countries have found success in addressing those issues. Lets learn off of it.

Bill Kirby wrote: Just making your point stronger. In favor, in favor? I love no regulations!! So much money to be made. Let Ted Cruz be President. I don't have any kids. I don't worry what no regulations will do to the environment.

I wasn't so much trying to make a point as I was just trying to understand the opposing side.

jason.cre wrote: Sure great lets look at that. Im not dogmatic or ideological. We have some problems in the country, and other countries have found success in addressing those issues. Lets learn off of it.

It would be nice to see Denmark's kind of union.

Quinn Baker wrote: I wasn't so much trying to make a point as I was just trying to understand the opposing side.

Good luck. I get lost at free trade.