Capitaine wrote:
Comparatively, does Scandinavia feel less strongly on property rights than, say, UK/US? Genuine question.
Who knows? How strong do the US/UK feel about it from a scale of 0 to 10 ? 
Perhaps in some ways, perhaps not in other ways. Legally the property right is undisputable I would think, but so is also the ancient everyman’s right to the land. The last one is so ingrained, it didn’t even exist as a written law until the 1950s.
LeSving wrote:
It’s no ideology, and it’s not a real problem. The real problem is the governments/authorities/UN whatever, identifying a problem (CO2 pollution, global warming), pretending to do something about it, but no measurable results whatsoever can be seen, despite regular people changing their lives (more or less).
The problem that governments face is that people want to fight climate change but they also want to eat and go see their grandmother, or even travel abroad. And that’s what’s causing the problem. Having a warm home, clothes, home appliances, some means of transportation and most importantly plentiful food. That’s why governments don’t want to act more on it. In many countries the heavy CO2 incentives are already slowly killing the economy, and governments know that if they push further people with fight back, for their survival and comfort.
Of course things like jets are a symbol of what’s unneccessary and trigger anger, which is partly understandable. But an environment of shrinking wealth always triggers such reactions, and once it starts taking down the highest wealth there’s no limit to which lower brackets they attack, until there’s nothing left.
It’s unclear if there is a solution that does not include shrinking wealth (which naturally leads to large scale war and violence), or massive population reduction (which is hard to swallow as well and leads to other problems), but I’d rather bet on that possibility and be part of these potential solutions. This means slowing warming with stratospheric particle spread in the short term – which I predict governments are going to start doing in the next 5-10 years -, switch a lot of power to nuclear (remember those activists used to target nuclear power plants), and coming up with a decent transportation solution (most likely net zero liquid synthetic fuel, since it’s the easiest to setup with our distribution network ; it could end up being quite economically viable if primary power is cheap enough).
people want to fight climate change but they also want to eat and go see their grandmother, or even travel abroad
The problem is that all methods of travel use up the same amount of fuel, within an order of magnitude. There is no “eco” travel option. All the “zero carbon” stuff is a con, obtained by planting trees at €x/tree, purchasing fictitious 3rd World carbon credits, etc. But we have the Climate Change thread also for the general stuff.
But an environment of shrinking wealth always triggers such reactions, and once it starts taking down the highest wealth there’s no limit to which lower brackets they attack, until there’s nothing left.
That’s true, which is why this needs to be contained decisively. I am not a believer in some sort of Bolshevik “unconstrained class warfare” ever happing in Europe, basically because too many people are too “fat” to want to do a proper uprising and events like the 3rd Reich arose mainly out of economic disasters (not to mention the post-Versailles stuff) and the governments are absolutely aware of this, so they fight hard to avoid anything like it happening, but we are going to get these vandal attacks around the fringes once the word gets around that the airport police will basically pose for selfies
I hope it doesn’t spread to GA… such an easy target. Actually anyone running an airfield or even a farm strip etc should now be looking at video surveillance, with IR imaging. I looked into that in 2005 when buying a hangar (fell through due to a crooked estate agent) and it wasn’t difficult then. Today it is much easier.
Coming back to the vandalism, a high-profile prosecution of the vandals would only create more publicity (most likely negative for the victims), and substantial cost to the public purse.
Try them, send them to jail and be done with it. This is childish nonsense, not the crime of the century. The news showed some similar twits attacking golfers on the PGA tour yesterday. It was good to see the security guys completely decking them, with minimal delay in making the arrest and moving on.
Silvaire wrote:
Try them, send them to jail and be done with it.
Exactly. Once they serve a couple of years ‘At her Majesty’s Pleasure’, they’ll think twice about vandalizing other people’s property.
Capitaine wrote:
Comparatively, does Scandinavia feel less strongly on property rights than, say, UK/US? Genuine question.
Compared to the UK, I don’t know. Compared the US, certainly! One example is the Swedish “Right of Public Access”, which has counterparts at least in Norway and Finland.
LeSving wrote:
In the grand scale of things, the activists/criminals are a sign of a healthy society. The acceptance of biz-jets flying around polluting, when others don’t, is not.
So “tourist bombers” are ok, because those people are using them for their own devices, but the “evil” biz jets are not??
You can call that envy which is partially true, but as much as that it is the attitude of “I don’t need it, so let’s kill that first”.
maxbc wrote:
The problem that governments face is that people want to fight climate change but they also want to eat and go see their grandmother, or even travel abroad. And that’s what’s causing the problem. Having a warm home, clothes, home appliances, some means of transportation and most importantly plentiful food
Exactly. It is the same attitude as the “NIMBY” brigade who will use airports for their own devices but oppose them because they make noise.
Save the planet but not by banning my interests, oh no. Those evil biz jets on the other hand….
maxbc wrote:
It’s unclear if there is a solution that does not include shrinking wealth (which naturally leads to large scale war and violence), or massive population reduction (which is hard to swallow as well and leads to other problems), but I’d rather bet on that possibility and be part of these potential solutions. T
Quite a few of the kind who would destroy other people’s properties would gladly be part of rotting out other humans if it serves their purpose. Eco-Fascism does not vary too much from other forms of fascism and “Lebensraum” is getting more and more sparse too. If you hear people who are musing about the advantages of a global war because it will kill a good part of those do-no-gooders then it becomes clear that the kind of movement we are watching is fascist. And at the same time, you get right wing fascism as well.
So in the end countries will end up with fractions who will not tolerate the other and who eventually will try to reach their aims by force. More and more it looks like that the “Endlösungen” which people are considering are more and more moving in a direction where a massive artificial reduction of the earths population by killing large parts of them off so they can live the dreams they have.
Looking at some posts here, I can start understanding why Americans are so vigilant about protecting their right to defend their properties if need be by shooting the perpetrators. IMHO it is only a question of time before this kind of stuff will also reach here. Maybe not gun violence but like a truck driving over protestors glued to the asphalt only claiming “sorry, I did not see them officer” while the pack bayes in approval. Do we really want this?
In the grand scale of things, the activists/criminals are a sign of a healthy society. The acceptance of biz-jets flying around polluting, when others don’t, is not.
I think rule of law and rational business management are healthy for a society, and those living in it. Companies buy and spend based on what works for them, including in relation to company planes and company travel, and that’s entirely healthy. The last thing society needs is companies wasting the time of people who are costly to employ, and passing the cost of wasted time onto the buyer of their product. Or creating a reduction in the company’s earnings when it uses those earnings to pay employees and retirees.
Looking at some posts here, I can start understanding why Americans are so vigilant about protecting their right to defend their properties if need be by shooting the perpetrators
Nobody in the US has the right to protect their property by violence – that’s reserved for preventing life threatening crime. Americans do however have property rights that are valuable both financially (land does in fact have rental value) and in keeping what’s been earned, and the expectation of rule of law. These factors also contribute to the US being a good place to invest and do business, as with other politically stable countries.
Think of other countries with the same traditions, such as Australia, where it may have to do with the very origins of white Australian population, or the United States, where this distrust is written into the constitution in the form of right to bear arms, originally promulgated to protect the nation against a potential rogue government. Despite this, both countries are socially conservative to the extreme.
In my view, belief in the enduring value of a Constitution that also by design protects individual rights and responsibilities over nanny state tyranny is not “socially conservative”, it is the opposite.
Bear in mind that while the US Constitutional right to bear arms was and still is intended partly as an ultimate backstop against illegal authoritarian government power (as you correctly describe, although there are many other synergistic Constitutional elements), in any country these childish climate wackos are acting in direct opposition to that objective by trying to force the creation of more laws and taxes, and to limit the activity of the economically productive population to align with their quasi-religion. This is not a cooperative movement of a population against illegal power, it is an ‘activist’ movement intended to force legitimate government to become highly authoritarian. And these are not freedom loving rebels, quite the opposite. They are authoritarian by nature, in my view reflecting their lack of maturity and naive fear, while the rule of law supports liberty.
The last thing society needs is companies wasting the time of people who are costly to employ, and passing the cost of wasted time onto the buyer of their product. Or creating a reduction in the company’s earnings when it uses those earnings to pay employees and retirees.
This is very precise description of governments around the world.
