Peak Oil: The greatest national security threat?
When I bring up Peak Oil in casual conversation, I usually end up having to explain it to whoever I’m talking to. The truth is that not many people have heard of it. I decided to bring it up because I read an interview today with Matthew Simmons (former G.W. Bush energy guru) in Grist Magazine where he points out that the Saudis (who supply a quarter of the world’s oil) are currently pumping 18 million barrels of water/day to get out 8 million barrels of oil. This method of oil extraction is not sustainable and means that A) their wells are running close to “E” and B) losing a quarter of the world’s oil supply is a Very Bad Thing™ since the world economy is still built on oil.
In case you didn’t know, Peak Oil is the theory that there is a very finite amount of big oil fields in the world and that new oil deposits will not be found/tapped at a rate that can supply enough to satisfy demand. Essentially, there’s a maximum number of barrels/day that can be produced and we’re either about to “hit the peak” or we will reach it soon.
It won’t be happening overnight, but a gradual drop in the amount of oil available worldwide has the potential to cause world chaos in the form of recessions, poverty, and worst of all: War. Very scary stuff.
The only good that can come of this is a sudden, rapid investment in the development of alternative energy sources. Before that happens, however, it is likely that cultures all over the world will be forced to quickly adapt to a world without giant SUVs and generally wasteful habits.
33 Responses to 'Peak Oil: The greatest national security threat?'
Leave a Reply
on November 8th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Hubert Peak based his paper on the Idea that Oil is a non-renewable resource. At the time he presented his work, it was commonly believed that oil comes from 1 source: the decomposition and compression of prehistoric organisms. This idea is now under scrutiny. Many now believe that oil formation is abiotic consisting of compressed water, limestone, and iron oxide. Others believe that oil is produced in much the same fashion as coal, from organic matter under extreme heat and compression. Either theory could be the explanation for the Mystery of Eugene Island. But the concept that oil gets created once and never again doesn’t even pass the BS test. The debate is not “When are we going to run out of oil?”. The debate is “When are we going to run out of REACHABLE oil?”. The answer is: “How much do you want it?”.
on November 9th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Your assertion that oil is a renewable resource is preposterous. I googled “abiotic oil” (since I never heard of it before) and just about every unique article that I found disproves it outright on the most basic of scientific principals.
If you don’t feel like reading a whole bunch of science, it boils down to this: If oil production were abiotic, our existing photosynthetic cycle and our silicate weathering cycle would not work. Or perhaps you need more convincing?
In my searches the only article I found supporting abiotic oil was spammed all over the Internet… Copied hundreds, if not thousands of times. Not only that, but there’s hundreds of websites linking to various versions of the article. It is obvious and flagrant spamdexing. This certainly doesn’t help it’s credibility.
Just to be sure, I did some research on the author: It is the same Chris Bennett that asserts that Jesus smoked pot. Besides being ridiculous (does pot even grow in the middle east?) and pointless, this guy obviously has a history of manipulating information to support his quack ideas. If you believe this guy, then I have a perpetutual motion machine to sell you. Perhaps I should give more credit to the guy. After all, he is a reverend in the Church of the Universe
As for “the mystery of Eugene Island”, it is no mystery. The increase in the amount of oil is the result of advancement in technology and geological science.
on November 9th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I had never heard of abiotic oil either. But It still does not discount the fact that Peak’s paper was based on the false idea that oil is a non-renewable resource. As far as abiotic oil goes, an abiotic process is not secesarily mutually exclisuive any other process. I’m not saying that I believe that oil has an abiotic origin but the truth is, we have only the most simplistic scientific understanding of origin of oil and as long as I cannot come up with a chemical proof for why oil requires biological material to form, I think you should always be reminded that there are other possiblities. That being said, If you have a REAL chemical example for why oil must be biological in origin I would like to see it. Crude oil (and all of its various composite hydrocarbons) are made from Carbon and Hydrogen (http://www.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining1.htm). Since the 2 elements exist in abiotic material, why can’t they be used to create oil. None of your “dis-proofs” explain why it can’t. They all say that it is unlikely based on circumstancial observations such as normal associations with biological sedimentary layers. 1 possible explaination for such finds is that the decomposition of biological material in sedimentary layers creates pockets which could trap oil traveling up thru the earth’s crust. Another fact which makes abiotic oil seem reasonable is that fact that some oil finds have been found at varying sedimentary layers with the same chemical composition in the same proportions. Wouldn’t you expect oil created in 2 distinct time periods to have different organic contaminants? Like I said, I don’t know that I agree with concept of abiotic oil (I grew up hearing it was compressed dinasaur lettuce too) but I’m not ruling it out without seeing a chemical proof for why it couldn’t be true.
on November 9th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
First of all, you state, “1 possible explaination for such finds is that the decomposition of biological material in sedimentary layers creates pockets which could trap oil traveling up thru the earth’s crust.”. You do realize that “decomposition of biological material” is the theory of biogenic production of oil?
Secondly, you state that “some oil finds have been found at varying sedimentary layers with the same chemical composition in the same proportions.” Which is actually explained in my previous link regarding Eugene Island. The layers between the oil deposits are the result of natural geological activity–usually caused by shifts in tectonic plates.
Not only that, but sedimentary layers are also created by a biological process (or by weathering of other rocks over millions of years). No matter what way you look at it, the materials in these layers originated from the surface (or at least, the ocean).
As for chemical proof that the formation of oil cannot occur in an abiotic manner, you should have read my other link from above. Simply put: Oil breaks down when heated over 100 degrees Celsius.
on November 16th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I’m not saying that all oil is abiotic. I’m saying that unless I see a chemical proof for why it can’t happen, I am willing to accept the possibility that at least some oil may form fron nonbiological material. It certainly would be an explanation for why oil is often found in parts of the world where no significant biological material existed (such as the tundra of Northern Siberia). I have not read that abiotic process requires heat, my limited research only referes to compression. I think a better explaination is that oil is biological and is constantly being created in the crust of the Earth and actually travels between geological layers. That would also be a good explanation for why oil from various sites around the world contains the same biological contaminants dispite where it came from. btw the above link is not a proof against abiotic oil. It is circumstantial evidence for biological origins of oil.
on November 16th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Chemical proof: At that amount of compression/depth, you get loads of heat. *Way* above the 100 degree point at which oil breaks down. Specifically, the theory of abiotic oil states that methane gas at high temperatures/pressures is what creates the oil. Since this is false and there is no alternative theory as to how the oil is formed, abiotic oil production is a myth.
Northen Siberia: Considering that this region was home to the Whooly Rhinoceros (an enormous vegetarian) from about 1.8 to about 12,000 years ago, I’m going to have to call BS on your assertion that the region had “no significant biological material”.
As far as biological production goes… I’m positive that it is still going on (especially when you consider that you can coax bacteria into producing complex hydrocarbons in a lab). However, considering that the amount of organic material that winds it’s way down into the earth occurs at a rate much slower than 700 million barrels a day (our current rate), oil is not a renewable resource.
In a search for some links I think I found *the ultimate* biological/abiotic link.
on November 17th, 2005 at 10:14 am
how many wooly Rhinocerii were there? 100? 1000 ? 10000? Is that really enough to create the kinds of oil finds that have been found in Siberia? I think a better bet is that oil (dispite how it is formed) is constantly moving under the ground laterally and vertically. That would explain why oil wells that have long been considered dry are suddenly yielding oil again. As far as your link goes, it is compelling and cast doubt on an already suspicious theory but it is not proof. You know what else it does? It opens in the same tab as your blog so I have to hit the back button to come back, losing everything I’ve typed. Could you fix that please?
on November 17th, 2005 at 10:17 am
BTW I have been dying to ask: How come all SUV are Giant?
on November 17th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
If you middle-click (or right-click and select “open in a new tab”), that opens in a new tab. I think it is damn rude for a website to make a link open in a new window. Whenever I see that, I’m like, “WTF! If I wanted to open it in a new window I’d middle click it!”
Why are all American cars giant in general? Our roads were designed wide for safety reasons… Then car manufacturers figured out that as long as a vehicle fits in a standard lane, it can be registered and thus, sold. Then Americans decided that, “bigger is better” and started buying them (for varying reasons, most of which are luxury/vanity).
BTW: A small SUV is a station wagon with all-wheel drive. Want a small SUV? Buy a Subaru Outback. It has about as much internal storage space as an SUV–it just doesn’t have as big wheels (and gets much better gas mileage). You can even buy station wagons with V8s in case you need to tow a giant boat or something.
on November 17th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
I’m gonna have to call BS on that one. The interior of a Subaru Outback is nowhere near as spacious as a Chevy Tahoe, which has the highest rated fuel efficiency in its class. I have sat in both and I know that the seats in the subaru outback are uncomfortably small while the seats ina tahoe are fairly spacious and comfortable. On top of that the tahoe has more space between seats and more head room.
on November 17th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
The Chevy Tahoe has 104 cubic feet of cargo space when you fold the seats down. The Subaru Outback has 66. Clearly, the Chevy Tahoe is a monstrous beast of an SUV. Why? Compare it to some other, more popular models:
Escape = 69 cu. feet
Forester = 64 cu. feet
Element = 77 cu. feet
CR-V = 72 cu. feet
Seems pretty damn equivalent to me. Regardless, if I can fit a full-size grill in my (~40 cu. feet cargo space with seats down) car along with a passenger, a dog, and various other boxes and equipment, the average person can get along just fine without all that space.
Now consider for a moment that 90% of all the SUV drivers out there spend 99% of their time in their completely empty vehicles community to and from work. It’s like driving a pickup truck around with a big empty trailer attached–*all the time*.
Now consider that the average American owns and drives an SUV. It is a huge ass waste of precious, non-renewable resources.
on November 20th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
It’s not necessarily about how much ‘cargo space’ is available in an SUV. It can also be about driving ‘up’ - being above the car in front of you. Seeing better, all that is around you.
Since I drive a very small car - after driving a REALLY large van - I can attest personally that I prefer driving an SUV compared to a car. I like do not like feeling like the large truck or car behind me is going to run me over.
I prefer having people, animals, and things all COMFORTABLY fit inside an SUV. I have a rather tall husband - it takes an extra bit of headroom, legroom, and cargo space to keep everyone comfortable. A car is much like a go-cart for him. It even induced back problems due to the way he has to sit in order to drive them.
So, my point, is that sometimes, it’s something more than just cargo space. It can be for reasons of comfort, a feeling of security, and convenience of hauling stuff around without having to fold the seats down, or configure a way to stuff it all in. It’s all relative in a person’s choice for an SUV.
One more point that just crossed my mind as well. I work with a lot of outside salesmen. And for them to haul around full sample cases, customers, displays, and literature, takes an SUV. It’s easier for people to ride around in, get in and out of, unload and load cargo, ect. It’s much more preferred than a car where all you get is a trunk, then the option of folding down a seat to decrease passenger space to 1 person.
There are a lot of people on this planet who simply prefer driving and SUV compared to a car. With the new Synergy Drive, and alternate Hybrid technology available, this may be a non-issue in the forseeable future. I have never remembered a time where fuel substitution has never seemed more viable than now. Eventually, we will not need gas for more than giving bigger trucks the horsepower they need to haul and pull. The average person may just be driving an hybrid in the future when they become more cost friendly to the middle, middle lower class.
on November 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
The Forester? The Element? Those are more popular SUVs? Who makes them? Who are you to be deciding what other people need? Have you ever tried to load 4-8 brats into your prius? When you have kids you will change your mind. But on the Plus side, I think toyota just came out with the hybrid 4runner so when you have 3 or 4 brats and you are a part of a car pool, you will still be able to condescend to the great unwashed about your enlightened European outlook on cars. BTW I’ve Driven in Europe, It’s not that great. We rented a car that was considered “full-size” and we didn’t even have room for all our luggage. As for me, I would rather spend 14 Gs on a diesel powered car before I’ll spend 30 on some goofy electric car shaped like a milk dud. If you are truely concerned about gas mileage, I think yamaha has a motorcycle that gets 80 -90 mpg. eCycle has one that gets 180. My personal favorite SUV is the 1965 Ford Bronco. Untill I scare up the money to restore 1, I’ll keep driving my comfortable pickup. For those of you who are bronco fans check out this concept: http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Ford-Bronco-Concept.htm .
on November 21st, 2005 at 10:39 am
I don’t know why the above section was crossed out but here is the link for the Young family’s next vehicle: http://www.seriouswheels.com/top2004-Ford-Bronco-Concept.htm
on November 21st, 2005 at 10:51 am
Solid, your link was broken. Here is the proper link:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Ford-Bronco-Concept.htm
on November 21st, 2005 at 11:23 am
Candy, I think an SUV is EXTREMELY appropriate for many situations. If it’s your job to regularly haul people around along with all their stuff, off-road, while towing a boat. Then yeah, get your ass a V8 Tacoma.
However, if you’re not towing anything, why not get a van? You can get one that places you just as high up as an SUV and it will hold more stuff.
If you don’t need to move lots of people around, but still need to tow things, get a pickup truck.
It is obvious that an SUV appeals to many people. It can do many things. However you must take into account the fact that the vast majority of people drive their SUVs around, alone, and with no cargo or trailer. Doesn’t that seem like a waste?
Hell, 90% of the SUVs sold today will never go off-road, so why the high ground clearance? It seems like lower bumpers would be more logical and safer for everyone. This is the biggest reason why SUVs are more fatal to pedestrians and are more likely to clear guard rails.
Also, why the large engines? There’s no reason why a vehicle that big has to tow stuff. Also, no one *needs* to go from 0-60 in 6 seconds. Not only that, but the weight of some SUVs is just ridiculous. A few simple changes could make SUVs better for everyone.
I have no doubt that future SUVs will have much better emissions thanks to hybrid technology and alternative fuels, but that is only a small part of the problem.
on November 21st, 2005 at 11:30 am
I just realized I forgot to address your comment on the rhino… For such a large vegetarian to graze, you’d bet your ass there would have to be loads of plants around. Not only that, but over the course of 1.8 million years, several hundred million would have lived. Now add that up with all the grass they ate and all the “biological material” droppings they left everywhere and you’ve got a *crapload* of the necessary ingredients to make oil naturally.
on November 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am
BTW: I have put three “brats” in my Prius before. It has seats for five people you know. Three children and one wife. Kids are supposed to sit in the back anyway.
on November 21st, 2005 at 2:36 pm
3 kids in your prius??? what about the dog? Kenel? Teeball gear? Football Gymbag? Soccer equipment? The truth is that just because you may be driving to work alone it is highly unlikely you would be always be alone. Should you rent a van everytime yer kids have teeball practice or every time you have to load all the brats and dog and go visit family for the holidays? What about the gifts?
on November 21st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Okay, okay - 1st of all the whole cussing thing (”Then yeah, get your ass a V8 Tacoma”) just isn’t necessary when talking or addressing something to me.
2nd - yes, there are different vehicles for different uses on this planet. And what it really boils down to here, gentlemen, is what people LIKE to drive. What they PREFER to drive. It is really none of anyone’s business what their motives are; but it’s what they enjoy driving, and thus, should be allowed to drive.
We don’t live in a country - thank God - that we are forced to drive a particular car, wear particular clothes, or act any particular way. We are individuals. People say America is great b/c of its government. No. America is great b/c of its individual rights and freedoms. Liberty, my friends. And dog-gonnit, if I want to drive an SUV, I’M going to do so, with or without your permission, and lectures.
*stepping off soapbox*
on November 21st, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Forgot one last thing - you mentioned ‘fatal to pedestrians… clear guardrails…’. My rebuttal to that is that I believe that everyone has a set time, place, and manner in which they will die - and that is the one thing everyone is guaranteed in this life.
I don’t wear a seatbelt. The very idea that there is a law for it really gets my blood boiling (considering motorcyclists don’t have to wear helments). However, I know that in a serious car crash (have lived through one, btw), my name is in the Book of Life. And it doesn’t matter how many safety features there are in a vehicle. If it’s my turn to go, science can only go so far, and then there is God.
So, I know it can sound insane, or even a little callous, to an unbeliever, however, that is just the way I believe and think.
No - my faith isn’t up for debate. I realize how it sounds to you, however, I make no apologies about it. It is what it is.
on November 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
While I find your Calvinistic views disturbing, I also find mandatory seatbelt laws disturbing. I’m a firm believer that as long as a person’s actions don’t infringe on the rights of another, then the actions in question should be legal (examples of laws that I’m against: anti-sodomy laws, bans on gay marriage, drug possession/usage laws, “alcohol in public” laws, etc).
Now let me clarify a bit: I believe that some actions *do* infringe on other people’s rights that I’m sure many people would disagree with. For example: Restaurant smoking bans. I personally believe that by smoking in a restaurant, a person is infringing on my right to clean air. It is also an example of invading one’s body without permission. All it takes is one person to fill a room with smoke and infringe on all the other people’s health.
It could be argued that by not wearing a seatbelt, your body flying through the window into someone’s car or building would be infringing on their right to be free from you embedding yourself in their property. However, if the driver survives I think an assault charge could be justified if the driver harms another with their body (criminal negligence).
on November 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
You have no right to clean air. You have a right to know what kind of air an establishment has, and choose either to go there or not. But you do not have a right to tell an establishment owner what kind of air they can have, or not have. This infringes on the owner’s rights.
Again, my point on seatbelts, why do I have to wear this seatbelt (which can also cause deaths in car accidents), when motorcyclists don’t have to wear a helmet? Both safety devices cause deaths, as well as not wearing them. But truly, I bought the car, and the seatbelt in it, and it is my property to do with as I please, so why am I being forced to wear it? Why does the Imperial Federal Government feel the need to protect me from “myself”.
But since you’re on my side on this - I suppose it’s a mute point. It just ruffles my feathers to think of it. I’m with you on drug legalization, however…. I think Americans would far better - in the long run - benefit from legalizing drugs and possession of them. We could not only tax them, but save money by not having to prosecute “criminals” over it. You could also use the taxes from the drugs to provide free rehab services for those who need them. Pretty spiffy idea for a conservative right-winger, eh?
Nah - seriously - you’re pretty fun to duel with. And I hope you don’t get terribly offended by anything I type. It’s very hard to represent emotion through text like this.
on November 23rd, 2005 at 1:17 pm
HA! Mute point… I can’t type. Meant moot point. Sorry….
on November 26th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Actually, you *do* have the right to clean air (see The Clean Air Act).
…and Jesus Christ! Ass is not a swear word! Like other words, it has many meanings. Since you can’t fit an ass in a Prius, you’re much better off with a Tacoma. Someone who travels with asses is likely to have cocks and bitches too.
I suppose my point is mute since you’re not going to hear any of this without some text-to-speech software.
on November 28th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Just because you can get 51 morons to vote for something does not make it a right. You cannot call anything a right that infringes on another person’s “rights”. A smoking ban denies a property owner the “right” to do with his property as he sees fit. If you don’t like the fact that joe’s pub allows smoking, then buy it and turn it into a non-smoking bar or a chuk-e-cheez or a walmart. But if you don’t own it, then you can’t tell the person who does what he can do with it.
on November 29th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Now you’re arguing the rights of property owners VS the rights of the general public. Just because you have the freedom to say something like, “Just because you can get 51 morons to vote for something does not make it a right” does not mean you are correct.
If a law is passed saying everyone has a right to clean air, we all have that right as citizens. It is as simple as that. The only recourse is to repeal the law (by voting in new representatives who will do so), or fight the law in the courts (but many would consider a ruling against such a law the realm of “activist judges”).
We all have the right to speak freely, yet we do not have the right to plot an assassination. Doesn’t one right trump the other? Another example: We all have the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial (due process). Yet when someone enters your home uninvited, you have the right to shoot them dead. Their right to due process was superceded by your right to use lethal force on trespassers.
There’s conflicting rights ALL OVER the legal map. For instance, a pub owner’s right to control what goes on inside his pub isn’t just limited to smoking bans; he also can’t sell liquor to minors, invite in more people than his fire-inspection permit allows, operate without running water, or host cock fights. A smoking ban is no different. All these preventative measures are in place to protect society as a whole and to prevent the innocent from being victimized.
These are not laws handed down by a tyrannical dictatorship. They were created and forged into law by means of a democratic process. In theory, they’re restrictions we’ve placed upon ourselves. If you don’t like them, you have only to convince the majority that your position is the correct one.
Also, your statement, “But if you don’t own it, then you can’t tell the person who does what he can do with it.” is true (in a sense). *I* cannot tell the owner what he can and can’t do with his place. But we the people can.
on November 30th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
I think that statement enbodies the very nature of democracy that our founding fathers feared. Our founding fathers did not intend to have everything that “We the People…” voted for become law. Our founding fathers set up a Constitutional Republic in which the power of government was limited by the Constitution. All laws passed had to pass the test of “Does the government have the power to do this under the constitution?” Certain “inalienable rights” are protected in the constitution as being escpecially important. One such right is property rights. The real problem with the cigarette ban is that is unfairly punishes property owners. Basically it says that you cannot smoke in the property that you own. But it does not address the ability for a person to smoke outside. Which do you think affects more of the general public, smoking in a bar that may get 100,000 patrons in a year or smoking outside that affects 4 billion ppl worldwide? If you were truely concerned about the general public you would say “the only place you can smoke is in someone’s private home or business and that business has to be constructed in such a way as to not let 1 molecule of toxic smoke escape it’s structure”. Otherwise what you are really saying is “I don’t like cigarette smoke so I am gonna get together with my fellow citizens and force that business owner at the point of a gun to prohibit smoking on his own property because after I can get the votes.” This kind of mob rule is exactly what our founding fathers worked so painstakingly to avoid.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
on December 1st, 2005 at 3:05 pm
First of all: *Please* use paragraphs! It is difficult to read what you wrote.
Secondly: There’s 6.5 billion people on this planet, not 4.
Thirdly: The amount of pollution that smokers exhale is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Once that smoke dissipates into the surrounding air, it’s ability to cause harm is severely diminished. The ban on smoking indoors is to prevent non-smokers from being forced to breath in the toxic air in large quantities.
Also, what the hell are you talking about in regards to our founding fathers and property rights? A large number of these people wanted to make it so that only land owners could vote and run for office. This was a major point of contention up until the last moments before the final version. No one could agree, so they left it out. This meant that the de-facto standard of land owners voting would continue.
Later on the dispute continued and eventually they settled on the electoral college. Regardless, what does this have to do with modern day property rights? The Constitution and it’s amendments make no mention of property rights other than that the government shall not seize it without due process and/or just compensation (eminent domain).
on December 2nd, 2005 at 10:40 am
Non smokers are not forced to breathe it. they can go somewhere else or stay home or eat outside.
No one is forcing non-smokers to breath “dirty air”.
The fact that the government was not granted power to even look into your belongings without probable cause, suggests that Gov has NO (0, less than nothing) authority to tell someone what they have to do with their property. It could be argued that the air inside a bar or home is actually the property of that property owner.
Asside from that If you are going to argue that there is no property rights in this country, then you are grasping at straws.
do we really want to live in a world where the government can tell you what to do with your private property? Today it is smoking in your own Restaraunt. Tommorrow it will be stip clubs being too accessible. And after that it would be “High Times” is Tooo Controversial and can’t be sold any more.
I just see this law as an extension of the crazed political correctness movement.
on December 2nd, 2005 at 2:45 pm
You’re confusing property rights with public places. A pub owner, if he wants to allow smoking in his establishment, has only to make his pub exclusive (i.e. add a bouncer/security guard and a guest list). A smoking ban is in place to insure the general population can enter a public space without fear of being inundated with smoke.
When operating as a free and open-to-all business, his establishment is no different than the sidewalk outside your house. You may “own” that particular stretch of land, but you’re legally bound to keep it free from obstacles (such as shoveling snow off of it in the Winter).
Are you advocating anarchy in regards to property? Should a new neighbor be able to move in next door and blast music all night long? Should they be allowed to block the street? Should they be allowed to turn it into a toxic waste dump?
All these regulations are based on the same property rights that you speak of. If we don’t have regulations regarding how property is handled, all sorts of horrible things can and will happen. Should a power company be allowed to dump their nuclear waste next door to your house? How about next to your child’s school? How about on some waterfront property that just so happens to feed into the city’s water supply?
on December 8th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Public places versus Property Rights: just because a place has unrestricted access, does not make it a public place. It is still a private business. I think if you don’t like smoking, check the door. If it doesn’t have a little nonsmoking symbol, then go somewhere else. That is absolute freedom without infringement on other people’s rights.
As for anarchy: that is a loaded question designed to get the answer you want. In addition you have changed the basis of the argument from private business to a private home. But I’ll take the bait anyways. Lets take the generic and apply it to the specific. You should be free to do whatever you want in your home provided A) it does not violate anyone else’s rights, and B) it does not violate some other Law (BTW the law should only exist to protect rights, so revert back to A).
So should I be allowed then to sit in my home and fire gunshots into the house next door? no because I am damaging property he pays for. should I be allowd then to shoot someone in my home? no of course not. Should I be allowed to introduce pollutants into the soil on my property that will contaminate my neibor’s water ? No (how would that be different from firing a gun into his house?).
Should I play music at 1500 decibels? In this particular case, there is already a noise ordinance in Jacksonville as there is in most cities. But if I were asked “Is the noise ordinance just?”, I would say I have not made up my mind. I would need to see where loud noise violates rights. If it does then the question is What do we do about noises that aren’t controlllable, such as traffic, trains, thunder, dogs howling. My working opinion is if you have a problem with your neighbor, talk to your neighbor. If the problem cannot be solved by talking to your neighbor, maybe you should consider a sound dampanning fence. The bottom line is that there is no reasonable expectation of silence for anyone. When I lived in my apartment in Riverside, My downstairs neigbors routinely threw parties so loud that they shook the building (it was a rickety piece of shit) but they always waited until friday or saturday to party. On fridays when they were having their partys I would either go out or I would hang around on the stoop and drink beer with them. They agreed to wrap em up by 2 AM which I considered very resonable. I don’t believe any of us has a RIGHT to not be offended or uncomfortable and if you think your neighbor can’t be reasonable, you can buy 4 inch thick foam panels at lowes for 5 bucks a sheet.
As for the Dump next to my child’s school: is the dump properly maintained? is it safe? Is it legal? Do I have a choice to send my kid to an alternate school? I have no intention to tell anyone what they can do with their own property as long as it does not violate anyone’s rights.
“Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.” - Arcesilaus
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”– Thomas Jefferson
on December 8th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Actually, if a place has unrestricted access, it *is* a public space. This is why businesses put signs on doors saying “employees only” (if they’re not locked). Legally speaking, once you’re inside a place with unrestricted access, no wandering can be considered trespass unless there are reasonable warnings/physical restrictions in place.
Now there are some precedents in law that state you don’t have to put a sign up or lock a given door and still expect a space to be “private”. Such as the door to a private residence, or an entryway that leads behind a serving counter or cash register. However, there’s no legal precedence stating that a restaurant that is open to the public is a “private space”.
FYI: A perfect example of this is fire codes… A restaurant has to have entry doors that open outwards. There is no such restriction for private residence. Depending on the city/county/state, smoking bans often fall under these same fire codes–as opposed to being codified into a separate law.
Also note that while *you* haven’t made up your mind or not on whether any given law is just does not mean that your elected officials haven’t. In fact, a debate has long since passed and the law in question is already in place. If you feel that a law violates your rights, challenge it in court! That’s one of the reasons why we have courts in the first place.
Of course, you probably will never challenge a law in court. This is because costs are prohibitive and our court system is so obfuscated that it is nearly impossible for a middle-class person to actively participate in any given court battle without risking their career, their family, and their liberty in general. Not only that, but It costs tens of thousands to hire a lawyer to argue *anything* in court on your behalf.
We’ve come to the point where a mere accusation of a crime can bankrupt a person and destroy their lives… But that is an entirely different subject.