Actually, that poster made a lot of sense. "Liberalism" (with a small 'l') is a genuine political theory, utilising writings by people such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Anthony de Jasay. The United States was founded on the basis of liberalism (the US Constitution is the epitome of liberalism), and much of its politics today follows liberal principles. These principles include what many people in the Western world take for granted, like individualism and private property ownership.
For some reason, the 'proper' definition of liberalism as used by political theorists (REAL political theorists, not the clowns who appear on your TV) has been abandoned by most Americans, and in some circles it is seen as a sort of insult. The rest of the world (and academics/theorists, including those in the US) continues to follow the original definition, instead of utilising it as a loaded buzzword.
That's true. Microsoft, for example, makes an 85% profit from Windows sales. In other words, the production, packaging, and R&D constitute only 15% of the cost of Windows.
There is evidence that oil is created much more quickly than originally thought. It may not take millions of years but only a few decades for sea life to transform into oil
I haven't heard that before. Do you have any more information on this? I'm curious.
And yes, I'm fully aware that oil comes from marine sources:)
Good point, but you ignores some important points. Fossil fuels (especially oil) are running out. It is important to have a clear energy path to continue to develop. The oil crises led to an initial flurry to find alternate energy sources, but since the early 1980s this has mostly died down.
There are good alternatives to conventional fuels that require little or no change to existing infrastructure. A good example is biofuels and fuels like greasel, which can be used in existing motor vehicles with only minor modifications. Incomes and employment in farming communities can be increased by producing biofuels. The production of renewable energy generators is more labour-intensive than fossil fuel extraction, which is mostly capital-intensive. Employment will greatly benefit. Renewable energy is cleaner and is far less of a health risk to people. Pollution-related illnesses can be dramatically reduced, lessening the strain on the health system and saving billions. Billions more can be saved by not propping-up uncompetitive fossil fuel companies with subsidies and by not having to maintain such a large miltary presence globally to protect energy supplies. Households and corporations will be able to generate their own power, giving them more latitude over their usage and preventing any large-scale energy disasters (like what California has been having). This is good for business.
I could go on, but you should get my point now. Renewable energy is not only cleaner, it is also better in the long-run economically. It may be initially difficult to switch to alternate forms of energy, but it will have to happen sometime in the future anyway. Countries like Denmark and Germany are pushing into renewable energy in a (relatively) big way, and they are already reaping the benefits. Vestas (for example) is cornering the wind technology market (which grows at about 25% annually). In the future this leadership and their technology will pay off big time.
Switching to other fuel sources should be Priority #1 for the US government. The Oil Crises (thirty years ago) have shown how dependent the US economy is upon foreign energy reserves, yet relatively little has been done to rectify this. One of the major reasons why the Islamic world (and hence Islamic entremists) is so pissed at the US is their military presence in the Middle East. If the US generated its own power (something renewable energy sources can provide), there would be no need to station troops in the Middle East, saving billions of dollars and increasing national security substantially. Self-sufficiency in energy can do more for national security than any amount of troops or military hardware. Want to stop terrorism? Don't piss people off by stationing your troops on their soil.
Also, what about the WTO, which the US claims to champion? Subsidies and other forms of industry protection are prohibited under WTO rules, yet the US gives massive subsidies to its fossil fuel industry. They're not the only country to do this, but they are by far the largest.
City planning is a major factor. Many cities (the USA is a good example here) have been developed without any consideration for public transport. There are roads everywhere, but few trains, trams or buses. Highways only encourage urban sprawl, and this only increases the need to own a car to get anywhere. Mass transit works best in denser cities, like those seen in Europe and Japan.
Too bad the fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars in subsidies and preferential treatment from backward and corrupt governments (particularly in the US, but also in other countries). There is no incentive for manufacturers or consumers to switch to alternate energy sources (for everything, not just cars) or even to curb consumption because prices are kept artificially low. if the fossil fuel industry was forced to compete on a level playing field, they would be far less competitive in the market than they are today.
I suggest you find some more accurate history books. In both world wars, Russia/USSR had the most decisive impact.
The US contribution to World War I was very minimal, most of it being the sale of arms and equipment to Allied countries (which wasn't really 'help' at all, just economic opportunism). The USA entered the war (indeed, both world wars) late, when German forces were wearing down. American troops were seen as too 'green' to be suitable for real combat (take a look at the Battle of Hammel, where US troops joyfully ran into a friendly creeping barrage), so they were placed in quiet sectors of the front. This freed up more battle-hardened (especially Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, who were the Allies' 'shock troops') troops to fight the real war.
If your culture is anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement... then I think Western civilization is better, thank you very much.
Firstly, that is your opinion -- who are you to impose those views on others? That sounds very discriminatory to me. It is also very narrow-minded and hubristic. You seem to assume that your value system is the only valid system in this world, and that everyone else is wrong. This is despite the fact that you know relatively nothing about other cultures or their histories. Secondly, what cultures are you referring to that are "anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement"? The largest world cultures aren't any of these things, so you must be misinformed (or you're referring to some tiny obscure culture that is statistically insignificant). Many of these things have been introduced by dictatorial governments to maintain control -- they were never part of people's culture.
Western civilisation is not fully devoid of similar traits. Class is an issue in Western society, and it is deepening as the rich-poor gap widens. Many statistics show a gradual decline in the overall quality of life in the USA since the 1970s. Poverty does exist in western nations, and those in lower strata of society have far fewer opportunities than those in higher social positions. Religion dictates many laws in the West, particularly in the USA where strong religious-based lobby groups exist.
You also ignore history. Only a hundred or so years ago, Western society exhibited many of the traits that are today seen as characteristic of the developing world. These include poor education and health amongst the majority of people, high birth rates, less democratic and even brutal governments, and discriminatory laws and policies based on race, gender and class. As time passed, economic growth and urbanisation rose. Social movements and the middle class grew. When the middle class was large enough, people were able to demand more say in governmental matters, and democratisation increased.
This is a process that takes a long time to evolve. As social factors improve, people become more empowered, leading to democratisation and more stable, pluralistic societies.
How do you propose to get rid of these thugs? By dropping supplies at them? By somehow convincing them to let their poor citizens have said supplies and let us give them a proper education?
I explained above how this is all a process. To take an example, look at the development of Taiwan and South Korea in the latter half of the 20th century. In any nation, governments need a basis for legitimacy to prevent a rebellion. Initially in these two countries the basis was simple military force. Eventually the basis became economic growth. Businesses, many being owned by ordinary citizens and not a rich elite, grew. Ordinary people developed their own economy and a middle class grew. As people became empowered economically, they began to want political power as well. Through popular pressure, the military governments of South Korea and Taiwan gave up their power and held democratic elections. The process was so smooth and relatively trouble-free that the party which once held authoritarian powers over the nation remained a powerful political force even in the new democratic system. It can be argued that similar processes are in various stages of progress in other places like Singapore, Hong Kong and even Malaysia.
How about use our military to force a regime change? No, that would be "Imperialism".
History has shown that political and military actions taken in other countries by the USA have been done for the sole benefit of the USA. The wellbeing of the local populations have been totally ignored. Why should anybody trust them now? Note that the USA isn't the first country to act in such a manner.
You ignore the massive support given by the US to the Shah, who was well known to be a brutal dictator. If the US hadn't backed him, we wouldn't have had a revolution, we wouldn't have had the Iraq-Iran war, we wouldn't have had the Iran-Contra scandal and we wouldn't have had such a hardline government in Iran today that supposedly threatens US interests. Saddam may not have been a problem, either.
I understand that those cultures and the circumstances they create SUCK and need to be changed.
How can you comment about and judge these cultures and circumstances when you obviously know nothing about them? That sounds very ignorant and bigoted to me. Many of the world's poorest cultures were very prosperous and sustainable before their contact with and exploitation by Western culture.
No, I would do what he says until I had a chance to disarm him or alert the police who would then proceed to disarm him or shoot him if necessary, then get him proper medical attention and send him to a small cell filled with hulking sodomites where he belongs. What, you say some countries don't have a trustworthy police force? Well, some cultures just suck that way...
You continue to oversimplify the issue. Usually this 'thug' has some sort of power base, often the military. The only way to fight such a force is to organise a resistance force of your own. That's the cause behind many civil wars in underdeveloped countries. Did you know that over half the countries in Africa are in a state of war? Probably not, because the corporate-controlled media in the USA ignores these things for 'sexier' (but unimportant on a global level) news. Something is seriously wrong when almost all of the radio stations are owned by one company, and the television networks are concentrated into a small handful of industrial/entertainment companies. "News" is about entertainment and ratings, not accuracy.
Seems like you have a poorer opinion of these people than I do. It's not easy to brainwash someone to behave in ways that go against their beliefs. It's their culture of hatred and submission that lets these things happen.
Rubbish. If a dictator can convince its people that there are no problems, then they may not revolt. This of course depends on how brutal their rule is. Nobody is going to like you if you continually threaten to shoot them. If you control the avenues of communication, then people have no way of organising resistance, and they cannot even find out what is really going on. Many people in underdeveloped nations are undereducated and illiterate. They can be easily subdued through propaganda. This doesn't mean they're stupid, just that they're unknowledgeable. That's not their fault.
It's the very "liberal" politics that you seem to support that create these subsidizations of domestic industries to protect "the worker", so I'm not sure what your point is there.
WTF? I strongly suggest you find a good book on political theory and read up on what 'liberalism' is. It forms the basis of Western societies, especially the USA. Economic liberalisation, including free trade and the dropping of all subsidies, is a major part of this. It is overconservative politics that create subsidies. Look at how many WTO regulations GW Bush has broken by introducing (or threatening to introduce) subsidies.
Perhaps our government should keep a tighter rein on the corporate "exploitation" of poorer countries, but they don't really have any authority in those countries
Western governments can exert all sorts of influence over governments of poorer nations. Economic aid is often given only if the recipient country spends it in a predetermined fashion or enacts specific reforms, which often benefit corporations from the donor country more than the country itself. That's how international politics works. The USA owns about 14% of the World Bank and has the largest share in the IMF. Through these bodies they are able to force massive change upon other countries.
I agree, and I think they better get working on it before it gets any worse. Bombing them with food and clothing isn't going to help.
Let me get this straight: Western companies and governments have been destroying the resources of these countries for hundreds of years, taking them from a state of self-sufficiency into poverty and unsustainability, yet you feel it's okay for
But it can afford to do this, by virtue of being the world's largest economy. They have no excuse to miss any payments, particularly when the payments they make are only a tiny fraction of their total GDP when compared to the contributions of some other countries.
The only bigot I see is yourself. You make no attempt to understand the many different cultures and circumstances that people worldwide are put through, and instead you make stupidly shallow remarks.
What would you do if some "thug with a gun" came and pointed his weapon at you? You would be forced to follow him. That's how things work in many poor countries. This "thug" controls the media and the schools, so it is very easy to brainwash a population into believing whatever they want. Information and education is vital to a properly-functioning democracy, and these factors are inadequate in most poor countries. They are getting worse in many developed countries also (particularly the USA).
Maybe if these countries weren't economically and environmentally raped and pillaged by Western corporations (with the full knowledge and support of their governments) they could stand on their own two feet? Maybe they'd be better off if they hadn't been colonised and exploited by Western powers (including Europe and the USA) for many hundreds of years?
Western governments talk about "free trade", and coerce poor nations to open their markets to Western interests, but they themselves don't practice what they preach and instead they generously subsidise their industries. Poor nations are left open and vulnerable, and because of protections in Western countries they have no hope of competing in the international market for any good.
Most conflicts in the developing world are the result of social inequality and environmental degradation. Remove those problems and often the problems will go away. If you're not poor, you don't need to steal, and if you don't need to steal, there'd be far fewer reasons to fight.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that poster made a lot of sense. "Liberalism" (with a small 'l') is a genuine political theory, utilising writings by people such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Anthony de Jasay. The United States was founded on the basis of liberalism (the US Constitution is the epitome of liberalism), and much of its politics today follows liberal principles. These principles include what many people in the Western world take for granted, like individualism and private property ownership.
For some reason, the 'proper' definition of liberalism as used by political theorists (REAL political theorists, not the clowns who appear on your TV) has been abandoned by most Americans, and in some circles it is seen as a sort of insult. The rest of the world (and academics/theorists, including those in the US) continues to follow the original definition, instead of utilising it as a loaded buzzword.
Because they are aligned more closely with the ideas of liberalism than the other parties. Isn't that obvious by the name?
--signed: Gene
P.S. I'm not really dead. I'm just hiding out with Elvis.
"We didn't sell it, we bartered it!"
Here's a more recent story (dated today). Telstra are the Microsoft of Australia.
"Real Aussies" drive American cars. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?
alright, finally the aussies are living up to their criminal heritage!!!
/. have been about them restricting rights.
:)
Overall, more convicts were sent to the American colonies than to Australia.
seems the past few articles involving Australia on
DMCA, Department of Homeland Security... Need I say more?
Do any vendors give out underwear? What about socks?
"Is it still possible to get enough free vendor-wear to fill your entire wardrobe?"
What, you actually like being a walking advertising billboard? Some of us have a thing called dignity which prevents us from stooping to such a level.
That's true. Microsoft, for example, makes an 85% profit from Windows sales. In other words, the production, packaging, and R&D constitute only 15% of the cost of Windows.
Just another excuse to fall asleep at the wheel...
There is evidence that oil is created much more quickly than originally thought. It may not take millions of years but only a few decades for sea life to transform into oil
:)
I haven't heard that before. Do you have any more information on this? I'm curious.
And yes, I'm fully aware that oil comes from marine sources
Good point, but you ignores some important points. Fossil fuels (especially oil) are running out. It is important to have a clear energy path to continue to develop. The oil crises led to an initial flurry to find alternate energy sources, but since the early 1980s this has mostly died down.
There are good alternatives to conventional fuels that require little or no change to existing infrastructure. A good example is biofuels and fuels like greasel, which can be used in existing motor vehicles with only minor modifications. Incomes and employment in farming communities can be increased by producing biofuels. The production of renewable energy generators is more labour-intensive than fossil fuel extraction, which is mostly capital-intensive. Employment will greatly benefit. Renewable energy is cleaner and is far less of a health risk to people. Pollution-related illnesses can be dramatically reduced, lessening the strain on the health system and saving billions. Billions more can be saved by not propping-up uncompetitive fossil fuel companies with subsidies and by not having to maintain such a large miltary presence globally to protect energy supplies. Households and corporations will be able to generate their own power, giving them more latitude over their usage and preventing any large-scale energy disasters (like what California has been having). This is good for business.
I could go on, but you should get my point now. Renewable energy is not only cleaner, it is also better in the long-run economically. It may be initially difficult to switch to alternate forms of energy, but it will have to happen sometime in the future anyway. Countries like Denmark and Germany are pushing into renewable energy in a (relatively) big way, and they are already reaping the benefits. Vestas (for example) is cornering the wind technology market (which grows at about 25% annually). In the future this leadership and their technology will pay off big time.
Switching to other fuel sources should be Priority #1 for the US government. The Oil Crises (thirty years ago) have shown how dependent the US economy is upon foreign energy reserves, yet relatively little has been done to rectify this. One of the major reasons why the Islamic world (and hence Islamic entremists) is so pissed at the US is their military presence in the Middle East. If the US generated its own power (something renewable energy sources can provide), there would be no need to station troops in the Middle East, saving billions of dollars and increasing national security substantially. Self-sufficiency in energy can do more for national security than any amount of troops or military hardware. Want to stop terrorism? Don't piss people off by stationing your troops on their soil.
Also, what about the WTO, which the US claims to champion? Subsidies and other forms of industry protection are prohibited under WTO rules, yet the US gives massive subsidies to its fossil fuel industry. They're not the only country to do this, but they are by far the largest.
Maybe you should try some greasel?
City planning is a major factor. Many cities (the USA is a good example here) have been developed without any consideration for public transport. There are roads everywhere, but few trains, trams or buses. Highways only encourage urban sprawl, and this only increases the need to own a car to get anywhere. Mass transit works best in denser cities, like those seen in Europe and Japan.
Too bad the fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars in subsidies and preferential treatment from backward and corrupt governments (particularly in the US, but also in other countries). There is no incentive for manufacturers or consumers to switch to alternate energy sources (for everything, not just cars) or even to curb consumption because prices are kept artificially low. if the fossil fuel industry was forced to compete on a level playing field, they would be far less competitive in the market than they are today.
Hopefully they're not propelling this with nuclear blasts. Previous attempts at this didn't work out too well.
:)
Yes, this is a joke. Dont take me seriously
He could if he used Flightgear instead of MS Flight Simulator. It probably wouldn't crash as often, either.
American power ended two world wars
I suggest you find some more accurate history books. In both world wars, Russia/USSR had the most decisive impact.
The US contribution to World War I was very minimal, most of it being the sale of arms and equipment to Allied countries (which wasn't really 'help' at all, just economic opportunism). The USA entered the war (indeed, both world wars) late, when German forces were wearing down. American troops were seen as too 'green' to be suitable for real combat (take a look at the Battle of Hammel, where US troops joyfully ran into a friendly creeping barrage), so they were placed in quiet sectors of the front. This freed up more battle-hardened (especially Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, who were the Allies' 'shock troops') troops to fight the real war.
If your culture is anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement... then I think Western civilization is better, thank you very much.
Firstly, that is your opinion -- who are you to impose those views on others? That sounds very discriminatory to me. It is also very narrow-minded and hubristic. You seem to assume that your value system is the only valid system in this world, and that everyone else is wrong. This is despite the fact that you know relatively nothing about other cultures or their histories. Secondly, what cultures are you referring to that are "anti-intellectual, highly authoritarian, unfair based on race, religion or gender, brutal in law-enforcement"? The largest world cultures aren't any of these things, so you must be misinformed (or you're referring to some tiny obscure culture that is statistically insignificant). Many of these things have been introduced by dictatorial governments to maintain control -- they were never part of people's culture.
Western civilisation is not fully devoid of similar traits. Class is an issue in Western society, and it is deepening as the rich-poor gap widens. Many statistics show a gradual decline in the overall quality of life in the USA since the 1970s. Poverty does exist in western nations, and those in lower strata of society have far fewer opportunities than those in higher social positions. Religion dictates many laws in the West, particularly in the USA where strong religious-based lobby groups exist.
You also ignore history. Only a hundred or so years ago, Western society exhibited many of the traits that are today seen as characteristic of the developing world. These include poor education and health amongst the majority of people, high birth rates, less democratic and even brutal governments, and discriminatory laws and policies based on race, gender and class. As time passed, economic growth and urbanisation rose. Social movements and the middle class grew. When the middle class was large enough, people were able to demand more say in governmental matters, and democratisation increased.
This is a process that takes a long time to evolve. As social factors improve, people become more empowered, leading to democratisation and more stable, pluralistic societies.
How do you propose to get rid of these thugs? By dropping supplies at them? By somehow convincing them to let their poor citizens have said supplies and let us give them a proper education?
I explained above how this is all a process. To take an example, look at the development of Taiwan and South Korea in the latter half of the 20th century. In any nation, governments need a basis for legitimacy to prevent a rebellion. Initially in these two countries the basis was simple military force. Eventually the basis became economic growth. Businesses, many being owned by ordinary citizens and not a rich elite, grew. Ordinary people developed their own economy and a middle class grew. As people became empowered economically, they began to want political power as well. Through popular pressure, the military governments of South Korea and Taiwan gave up their power and held democratic elections. The process was so smooth and relatively trouble-free that the party which once held authoritarian powers over the nation remained a powerful political force even in the new democratic system. It can be argued that similar processes are in various stages of progress in other places like Singapore, Hong Kong and even Malaysia.
How about use our military to force a regime change? No, that would be "Imperialism".
History has shown that political and military actions taken in other countries by the USA have been done for the sole benefit of the USA. The wellbeing of the local populations have been totally ignored. Why should anybody trust them now? Note that the USA isn't the first country to act in such a manner.
You ignore the massive support given by the US to the Shah, who was well known to be a brutal dictator. If the US hadn't backed him, we wouldn't have had a revolution, we wouldn't have had the Iraq-Iran war, we wouldn't have had the Iran-Contra scandal and we wouldn't have had such a hardline government in Iran today that supposedly threatens US interests. Saddam may not have been a problem, either.
I understand that those cultures and the circumstances they create SUCK and need to be changed.
How can you comment about and judge these cultures and circumstances when you obviously know nothing about them? That sounds very ignorant and bigoted to me. Many of the world's poorest cultures were very prosperous and sustainable before their contact with and exploitation by Western culture.
No, I would do what he says until I had a chance to disarm him or alert the police who would then proceed to disarm him or shoot him if necessary, then get him proper medical attention and send him to a small cell filled with hulking sodomites where he belongs. What, you say some countries don't have a trustworthy police force? Well, some cultures just suck that way...
You continue to oversimplify the issue. Usually this 'thug' has some sort of power base, often the military. The only way to fight such a force is to organise a resistance force of your own. That's the cause behind many civil wars in underdeveloped countries. Did you know that over half the countries in Africa are in a state of war? Probably not, because the corporate-controlled media in the USA ignores these things for 'sexier' (but unimportant on a global level) news. Something is seriously wrong when almost all of the radio stations are owned by one company, and the television networks are concentrated into a small handful of industrial/entertainment companies. "News" is about entertainment and ratings, not accuracy.
Seems like you have a poorer opinion of these people than I do. It's not easy to brainwash someone to behave in ways that go against their beliefs. It's their culture of hatred and submission that lets these things happen.
Rubbish. If a dictator can convince its people that there are no problems, then they may not revolt. This of course depends on how brutal their rule is. Nobody is going to like you if you continually threaten to shoot them. If you control the avenues of communication, then people have no way of organising resistance, and they cannot even find out what is really going on. Many people in underdeveloped nations are undereducated and illiterate. They can be easily subdued through propaganda. This doesn't mean they're stupid, just that they're unknowledgeable. That's not their fault.
It's the very "liberal" politics that you seem to support that create these subsidizations of domestic industries to protect "the worker", so I'm not sure what your point is there.
WTF? I strongly suggest you find a good book on political theory and read up on what 'liberalism' is. It forms the basis of Western societies, especially the USA. Economic liberalisation, including free trade and the dropping of all subsidies, is a major part of this. It is overconservative politics that create subsidies. Look at how many WTO regulations GW Bush has broken by introducing (or threatening to introduce) subsidies.
Perhaps our government should keep a tighter rein on the corporate "exploitation" of poorer countries, but they don't really have any authority in those countries
Western governments can exert all sorts of influence over governments of poorer nations. Economic aid is often given only if the recipient country spends it in a predetermined fashion or enacts specific reforms, which often benefit corporations from the donor country more than the country itself. That's how international politics works. The USA owns about 14% of the World Bank and has the largest share in the IMF. Through these bodies they are able to force massive change upon other countries.
I agree, and I think they better get working on it before it gets any worse. Bombing them with food and clothing isn't going to help.
Let me get this straight: Western companies and governments have been destroying the resources of these countries for hundreds of years, taking them from a state of self-sufficiency into poverty and unsustainability, yet you feel it's okay for
But it can afford to do this, by virtue of being the world's largest economy. They have no excuse to miss any payments, particularly when the payments they make are only a tiny fraction of their total GDP when compared to the contributions of some other countries.
The only bigot I see is yourself. You make no attempt to understand the many different cultures and circumstances that people worldwide are put through, and instead you make stupidly shallow remarks.
What would you do if some "thug with a gun" came and pointed his weapon at you? You would be forced to follow him. That's how things work in many poor countries. This "thug" controls the media and the schools, so it is very easy to brainwash a population into believing whatever they want. Information and education is vital to a properly-functioning democracy, and these factors are inadequate in most poor countries. They are getting worse in many developed countries also (particularly the USA).
Maybe if these countries weren't economically and environmentally raped and pillaged by Western corporations (with the full knowledge and support of their governments) they could stand on their own two feet? Maybe they'd be better off if they hadn't been colonised and exploited by Western powers (including Europe and the USA) for many hundreds of years?
Western governments talk about "free trade", and coerce poor nations to open their markets to Western interests, but they themselves don't practice what they preach and instead they generously subsidise their industries. Poor nations are left open and vulnerable, and because of protections in Western countries they have no hope of competing in the international market for any good.
Most conflicts in the developing world are the result of social inequality and environmental degradation. Remove those problems and often the problems will go away. If you're not poor, you don't need to steal, and if you don't need to steal, there'd be far fewer reasons to fight.