Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
White liberals really don’t like Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix special. Will the media cancel the groundbreaking comedian or did he just cancel them? Also, Greta Thunberg gets a hero’s welcome in New York City before speaking to the UN. Why are climate activists exploiting the 16-year-old and where are her parents?
The intro/outro song and Stephen’s song of the week is “Tonight I Have to Leave It” by the Shout Out Louds. Jon’s song of the week is “New Year’s Day” by HTRK. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist!
Subscribe to King of Stuff in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
“High functioning” autism is actually pretty hard on a person. The suicide rates and unemployment rates are sky high. The suicide rates are about six times to eight times higher for high functioning autistics according to studies from both Scandinavian countries, the UK and America.
https://iancommunity.org/aic/link-between-autism-and-suicide-risk
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171023180114.htm
Great, entertaining Podcast as always. Love these guys.
You don’t think Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard place has solar powered sump pumps?
No, but I bet they have plenty of plastic straws!
Dave Chappelle is hardly new. Mel Feit, for one, was taking that path DECADES ago.
Full disclosure I don’t want to put any effort into this.
The Dallas Black Panthers did an open carry demonstration and all of the white people applauded it and this made Vice magazine really mad?
That’s beautiful if that’s what actually happened. lol
Speaking of the environment, this is the best article I have ever read about the stupidity of recycling. Mike Munger is really smart.
Typical. Caring is enough for them. Show you care by voting for Democrats and perform useless rituals like recycling or driving electric cars powered by coal burning power stations. Call for higher taxes for other people. Show you are a “good person” and politically correct.
That’s a bit oversimplified. If someone won’t pay you for leftover prescription drugs or dangerous chemicals, then you should feel justified adding them to the trash?
What about junk cars? Biohazard waste?
Even if someone will buy used engine oil in bulk, that doesn’t make it cost-efficient for them to come to your house to get yours. But it’s still no excuse for dumping it down a storm drain rather than taking it someplace that may not pay YOU for it, but at least it doesn’t cause damage.
The cost of recycling is ridiculous.
Commodity prices have to be much higher before recycling makes any sense. The only exception is aluminum. Just because you aren’t recycling that doesn’t mean you are creating pollution. The whole operation is destroying society’s precious capital. Mathematical stupidity.
That kind of attitude strikes me as being one of the worst aspects of “pure” Libertarianism. And it makes an easy target for the loons on the left.
Unless it’s toxic put it in the landfill.
But you pay the landfill, too. Why should you have to do that, for something that’s worthless?
From a pure libertarian view, it might be argued that if you buy – for example – a quart of motor oil, you assume all responsibility for its ownership, which includes disposal. If that costs more than the oil itself, well, too bad. Live with it, or find a way to not use oil.
The overall problem comes from shifting responsibility. The cost of purchasing the oil might be borne individually, but the issues of disposal get shifted to the collective, perhaps under force of law if otherwise people would tend to just dump it somewhere.
It’s not even close to the same cost.
The point is, there are very good reasons to recycle other than expecting to make a(nother) profit.
If it’s not toxic, you are going backwards. There is plenty of straight reporting about this.
That the left might argue in favor of going to the moon because of all the green cheese to be mined that could feed the hungry, doesn’t prove that going to the moon isn’t a good idea for other reasons.
For one thing, we don’t always know right away if something is dangerous. It was the left that demanded MTBE be added to gasoline to reduce pollution. It was the left that demanded plastic bags be used instead of paper, to save trees, and now they argue the opposite because “plastic is bad.”
Secondly, once you get into “utilitarian” arguments the economic lines get hazy. If it costs less to kill X number of people by pollution than to clean up the pollution, how do you argue that the specific pollution should be cleaned up anyway, while still denying that other pollution is bad enough to also “deserve” being cleaned up? X degree of pollution/toxicity is acceptable but Y degree is not? Why? How? Who decides? The present-day ability to make a profit – or not – doesn’t seem all that useful, especially when the values of “commodities” – as you call them – can fluctuate a lot. Does it really make sense to just throw aluminum cans into the landfill if the recycle price happens to drop below X dollars per pound for a few days or something? Just the cost of changing things around must be considered too. Plus the value of habits, etc.
I love this.
Private capital is the only thing that should be risked on this type of decision.
No. Aluminum has a long track record. There is plenty of data on this.
Private capital is the only thing that should be risked on this type of decision.
We should be putting as much potentially valuable stuff into the landfills as possible. Someday we’ll be mining them for resources, and the more good stuff that’s in there, the sooner it will be economically viable.
That’s basically what happens with electronics. It’s too expensive right now to leach out the precious metals etc. that are inside.
Best guest on EconTalk!
I need to hear that. His Dave Rubin interview was excellent, too.
Recycling is an example of what I call the “Cleveland Fallacy”.
Imagine you’re driving from New York to L.A. with friends. As you pass Cleveland, they start screaming at you to hit the brakes: “or we’ll fall into the Pacific Ocean!”
True, we will have to recycle eventually; but until then bury the stuff and, 20 years from now, mini-robots will mine it for us.
Instead of the entire population put to involuntary servitude as unpaid sanitation engineers, washing and sorting garbage.
That’s the thing. Wealth (capital, intellectual capital etc.) solves a lot of problems. Recycling, except for aluminum, just destroys capital. It’s a waste of people’s time.
link