While I don't agree with the corporate welfare and bail-outs, I hardly think that justifies droping all regulation besides the contractual, and allowing business to run its course... But I just happen to dislike clear-cutting, stip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping...etc.. If you don't mind, then I guess you have a point. We've seen what happens in the past, and industry does even worse for the public when not regulated at all.
You fail to realize the regulations tend to become excessive over time - which gives the same situation as corporate welfare (or industry preference by the government in a more general sense).
You also seem to have a contradictory value system - the reason that strip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping are occuring is because that is the equivalent of the values of those people and/or lands. I am not making a statement on whether those things are good or bad - they simply are because that is what they are valued as.
For example, the opposite side could just as easily be argued in that the sweat shop labor of children actually increases the wealth of their poverty-stricken families. Those families have increased their purchasing power through that labor.
Nevertheless - setting mandatory wages in itself does not increase the wealth of a person. An across-the-board simply raises prices - leaving those people (within some degree of error of course) just as poor as before.
I mean, what about the F.A.A? I for one feel a little safer flying knowing that not just any hack pilot with a beater plane can start an airline company and kill a few hundred people before "market forces" drive him out of busines.
You say that the FAA keeps you safe from "any hack pilot with a beater plane" that can "kill a few hundred people before 'market forces' drive him out of business". This is not a valid statement because the FAA hasn't done that at all - there are still horrible airline accidents caused by airlines not following safety guidelines put in place through federal legislation. This doesn't even mention that fact that the FAA itself has been in a chronic state of inability to do all facets of its job competently for quite some time now.
I don't happen to belive that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem. Environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest, one way or another. And I don't think that the same quest is going to turn around and fix them...at least without some nudging.
To say that you "don't happen to believe that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem" is to say that would actually advocate a solution that decreases the wealth of people. Not only that - but you would advocate a poorer society on the basis of the argument that "environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest" (i.e. capitalism). The funniest thing about this is that most pollution - namely the strip-mining and toxic waste dumping you mentioned above - takes place on publically-owned government lands. That is the same group you look to in order to solve the problem.
The changeover period to those alternatives is always going to be too expensive, until damn near every last drop of oil is gone, damn near every last tree is cut down (perhaps not in the U.S. in particular, but elsewhere), and the probablems with the environment (which are very very real) are so obvious that it is too late to really do anything to change them besides wait about 300 years or so...maybe longer...
First of all - if the environment changes (believe it or not - it has before), then people will simply have to cope with it.
Secondly, you've blatantly ignored all arguments posted in response to what you've written about oil somehow disappearing someday. (1) Basic economics tells us that if oil becomes scarce in the future, then prices will rise correspondingly and it will become viable to develop alternative energy sources. (2) Someone posted a good reference above somewhere about Cornell geologists finding out that oil sources are actually refilling themselves over time - very possibly at a greater rate than we could remove the oil. It also mentioned the fact that all sources of oil are simply not known to us at this time - meaning that refilling from a now unknown source is most definitely a possibility.
The argument that counters the tree rhetoric is much the same - in that trees will be grown when it becomes economically viable to do so. There's no point in replacing forests at a loss. Of course, you may not understand that since you advocate a contraction in the wealth of a given society.
I just don't have this perfect faith in capitalism. I mean, regulations were put in place for a reason to begin with right?
Faith in something is similar to having faith in God - I may not know why it works, but I'm sure God will take care of it. The obvious question - how can you not have "faith" then in the millions of people who work their own land, fly their own planes, know their personal jobs better than any government planner sitting in an office a thousand miles away - and still manage to have "faith" that an uneducated, unskilled, inconsequential politician has your best interests at heart?
And they have considerably helped the general population.
Prove it - not with emotional nonsense though.
Think about that tomorrow when you have the day off. And think about it every time you get a reasonable pay check for a reasonable amount of work. Unchecked capitalism would probably not let you have tomorrow off, or pay you fairly for your work.
Heh - I'm a student, so I don't get days off.
What is a "reasonable" paycheck anyways? I was always under the impression that "reasonable" pay would compensate me in a fashion that I thought was worth my labor. My labor happens to be valued at about $7.50/hour right now - if I ever become unhappy with that, then I am free to offer my skills to anyone else in the oh so great marketplace of labor at a higher price. However, since I am un-degreed are largely inexperienced employee, I do not think that is a reasonable position.
"Unchecked capitalism" would pay you exactly what you were really worth to the market - if that happened to be $2.00/hour - sorry, that would be your value then. I've always noticed how anti-capitalism arguments tend to degenerate into a tirade against "unfair" labor values. Some people can't stand that their labor can be bought and sold in the market - that they actually may not be as valuable as someone else.
I realized some time ago that asking the government to transfer wealth to me is the equivalent of stealing from another individual with the barrel of a gun pointed at their head. It's not so much the money being taken from me that always bothered me - that money being given to someone whose labor is not worth a minimum wage, given to some moral/political cause that I am not a party to, given to a politician who would spends his time regulating my life, given to the FBI agent who builds a computer system with my wealth that monitors what I say and do over the Internet.
No - what always bothered me the most is that that wealth is my time - time that I will never get back for the remainder of my life. It is time that I could spend with my family, the girl I love, educating myself.
You're going to wake up someday and realize that there is no way that those people can ever guarantee your safety - that they are taking from you solely in the name of power and power alone. They have no desire to help you anymore than in those ways which increase their power.
I realize this and I am a free man because of it. Are you?
I haven't disregarded however the economics behind "energy sources in general" as you put it. I simply mean that looking for alternatives is more expensive than maintaining the status quo. I am sure you agree with at least that much.
You're contradicting yourself - if looking for alternatives is more costly than the status quo, then obviously that is going to dominate the market. The only way to switch primary energy sources is to bring the cost of production below what the "status quo" is today, tomorrow, or whenever. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.
I stated that it did have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses. And it does. GO READ. Books are good for you. Try to find a reason why hemp is illegal, while we used to be forced to grow it during war times.
I am well aware of hemp being undermined as a source of energy, food, etc. by various industries.
The connection you fail to make is that what you deem to be necessary would require even more government intervention than what exists now. You say that there is a conspiracy to keep hemp out of the marketplace - and I absolutely agree with you on that point - but you don't seem to realize what forcing an industry to change it's energy source would entail. In a purely capitalistic society, government intervention would basically be non-existent (except for enforcement of contracts and laws) - allowing a company to market hemp and make a profit off of it if it so desires.
I never even mentioned the Soviet Union. So the reasoning behind constantly comparing what I say to the Soviet Union shows through as a bias on your part. All I am saying is that our "American Capitalism" complete with our rule of law, has done extremely well for us. However, the historic record shows that many other countries, in particular Central American countries, has suffered greatly *DIRECTLY* by our interference, due to capitalist influence. Basically, they tried to make a real democracy, it didn't suit our business needs, so we waged a terrorist war against them. (Look to Nicaragua in particular, if you need an example.)
I don't recall quoting you mentioning the Soviet Union. It was just a comparison - deal with it.
Our "American Capitalism" - as you put - is not capitalism at all. In pure capitalism, there is no (well, minimal) mixing of government and industry. But, as can be clearly seen by reading those ever-elusive history books, the United States government has meddled in different industries time and time again.
The countries in Central America did not suffer because we advocate capitalism - they suffered because of the intertwining that has taken place between industry and government. This is a tiny thing that gets overlooked by an awful lot of people - but it makes an enormous difference.
Perhaps if the government would stop creating these mega-corporations through corporate welfare, increasing production costs (especially for new entries) in various markets through over-regulation, the bailing out of big business when customers choose another producer - then perhaps we wouldn't see so many of these problems crop up.
The whole point I was trying to get at, which is obviously WAY over your heads, is that just because something is good for our capitalist interests, does not mean it is good for the environment.
That statement is irrational - what is good for our capitalist interests are those things which increase our wealth over time. If society sees environmental concerns as being more important than other things in their lives, then they will support them.
But perhaps people see themselves being able to farm and handle their own land as being more important than what the EPA dictates to them as "environmentally-friendly". Don't get excited and bitch at me about how you never wrote that - it was just an example.
Just because we have a jackass president saying not to worry, the environment is just fine, does not mean that it is. Science directly contradicts his hillbilly assumtions. And thousands of brainwashed little tools will not convince me otherwise. Burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer. In fact, it's a horrible answer. But appearantly the country has been overtaken but retarded assholes who have no f*cking clue. So sign right up buddy.
It's funny how you defended your economic knowledge above and then state "burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer". Gee "buddy" - you should really learn how the world works someday.
While I do not base my ideas on what George Bush says, I do dispute the "fact" that science has concluded the environment is in danger. What is actually happening is that scientists are still pretty much in hot debate about what effect human beings will have on the environment in the long run. There are mountains of bad and biased data that have to be climbed over - and it will take some time to do so.
You would do well to remember that the "science" you are citing is largely government-funded research - and the government funds much more research that supports permanent environmental damage than research that refutes it. Why is that? Well - one reason that comes to mind is that is allows parts of government to promote an "environmentally-friendly" agenda - passing legislation that allows government to seize private property and do as they see fit when they claim it to be "in danger".
All in all - those who advocate government-mandated environmental legislation are simply providing a tool for government to see wealth from the population. As much as you want to believe that most people don't care - in fact, most of the sheep have been herded into thinking that they know all the answers and that the government knows how to deal with it when they really have "no f*cking clue" as you put it.
That would cost money, and money is that thing that's really important.
You have totally disregarded the economics behind the failure of electric cars and energy sources in general.
Hemp is one such source [artistictreasure.com], that actually does have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses, so I guess in some ways that might be right. But still, that wasn't the point I was making.
Your buddy the government was ultimately responsible for killing that one off. Pure capitalism had no say in that. Sorry.
Then I said it helps US have a higher standard of living. Not everyone. Again, this is true, and the historical record shows it.
You're separating capitalism from firm rule of law. And, in fact, firm rule of law is the first requirement of a purely capitalist society. If you realized this, then you would start to notice that the countries who came closest to this goal (i.e. the United States) obtained a higher overall standard of living than those that went the farthest away from it (i.e. the Soviet Union).
Then you basically said I was a communist. Which is a nice little cop out on your part.
A bigger "cop out" is to argue a position that is clearly wrong and irrational long after it has been beaten into the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't agree with the corporate welfare and bail-outs, I hardly think that justifies droping all regulation besides the contractual, and allowing business to run its course ... But I just happen to dislike clear-cutting, stip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping...etc.. If you don't mind, then I guess you have a point. We've seen what happens in the past, and industry does even worse for the public when not regulated at all.
You fail to realize the regulations tend to become excessive over time - which gives the same situation as corporate welfare (or industry preference by the government in a more general sense).
You also seem to have a contradictory value system - the reason that strip-mining, sweat shop labor, and toxic waste dumping are occuring is because that is the equivalent of the values of those people and/or lands. I am not making a statement on whether those things are good or bad - they simply are because that is what they are valued as.
For example, the opposite side could just as easily be argued in that the sweat shop labor of children actually increases the wealth of their poverty-stricken families. Those families have increased their purchasing power through that labor.
Nevertheless - setting mandatory wages in itself does not increase the wealth of a person. An across-the-board simply raises prices - leaving those people (within some degree of error of course) just as poor as before.
I mean, what about the F.A.A? I for one feel a little safer flying knowing that not just any hack pilot with a beater plane can start an airline company and kill a few hundred people before "market forces" drive him out of busines.
You say that the FAA keeps you safe from "any hack pilot with a beater plane" that can "kill a few hundred people before 'market forces' drive him out of business". This is not a valid statement because the FAA hasn't done that at all - there are still horrible airline accidents caused by airlines not following safety guidelines put in place through federal legislation. This doesn't even mention that fact that the FAA itself has been in a chronic state of inability to do all facets of its job competently for quite some time now.I don't happen to belive that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem. Environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest, one way or another. And I don't think that the same quest is going to turn around and fix them...at least without some nudging.
To say that you "don't happen to believe that the ever going hunt to increase wealth is always the best way to solve a given problem" is to say that would actually advocate a solution that decreases the wealth of people. Not only that - but you would advocate a poorer society on the basis of the argument that "environmental problems that we have were caused by that quest" (i.e. capitalism). The funniest thing about this is that most pollution - namely the strip-mining and toxic waste dumping you mentioned above - takes place on publically-owned government lands. That is the same group you look to in order to solve the problem.
The changeover period to those alternatives is always going to be too expensive, until damn near every last drop of oil is gone, damn near every last tree is cut down (perhaps not in the U.S. in particular, but elsewhere), and the probablems with the environment (which are very very real) are so obvious that it is too late to really do anything to change them besides wait about 300 years or so...maybe longer...
First of all - if the environment changes (believe it or not - it has before), then people will simply have to cope with it.
Secondly, you've blatantly ignored all arguments posted in response to what you've written about oil somehow disappearing someday. (1) Basic economics tells us that if oil becomes scarce in the future, then prices will rise correspondingly and it will become viable to develop alternative energy sources. (2) Someone posted a good reference above somewhere about Cornell geologists finding out that oil sources are actually refilling themselves over time - very possibly at a greater rate than we could remove the oil. It also mentioned the fact that all sources of oil are simply not known to us at this time - meaning that refilling from a now unknown source is most definitely a possibility.
The argument that counters the tree rhetoric is much the same - in that trees will be grown when it becomes economically viable to do so. There's no point in replacing forests at a loss. Of course, you may not understand that since you advocate a contraction in the wealth of a given society.
I just don't have this perfect faith in capitalism. I mean, regulations were put in place for a reason to begin with right?
Faith in something is similar to having faith in God - I may not know why it works, but I'm sure God will take care of it. The obvious question - how can you not have "faith" then in the millions of people who work their own land, fly their own planes, know their personal jobs better than any government planner sitting in an office a thousand miles away - and still manage to have "faith" that an uneducated, unskilled, inconsequential politician has your best interests at heart?
And they have considerably helped the general population.
Prove it - not with emotional nonsense though.
Think about that tomorrow when you have the day off. And think about it every time you get a reasonable pay check for a reasonable amount of work. Unchecked capitalism would probably not let you have tomorrow off, or pay you fairly for your work.
Heh - I'm a student, so I don't get days off.
What is a "reasonable" paycheck anyways? I was always under the impression that "reasonable" pay would compensate me in a fashion that I thought was worth my labor. My labor happens to be valued at about $7.50/hour right now - if I ever become unhappy with that, then I am free to offer my skills to anyone else in the oh so great marketplace of labor at a higher price. However, since I am un-degreed are largely inexperienced employee, I do not think that is a reasonable position.
"Unchecked capitalism" would pay you exactly what you were really worth to the market - if that happened to be $2.00/hour - sorry, that would be your value then. I've always noticed how anti-capitalism arguments tend to degenerate into a tirade against "unfair" labor values. Some people can't stand that their labor can be bought and sold in the market - that they actually may not be as valuable as someone else.
I realized some time ago that asking the government to transfer wealth to me is the equivalent of stealing from another individual with the barrel of a gun pointed at their head. It's not so much the money being taken from me that always bothered me - that money being given to someone whose labor is not worth a minimum wage, given to some moral/political cause that I am not a party to, given to a politician who would spends his time regulating my life, given to the FBI agent who builds a computer system with my wealth that monitors what I say and do over the Internet.
No - what always bothered me the most is that that wealth is my time - time that I will never get back for the remainder of my life. It is time that I could spend with my family, the girl I love, educating myself.
You're going to wake up someday and realize that there is no way that those people can ever guarantee your safety - that they are taking from you solely in the name of power and power alone. They have no desire to help you anymore than in those ways which increase their power.
I realize this and I am a free man because of it. Are you?
I haven't disregarded however the economics behind "energy sources in general" as you put it. I simply mean that looking for alternatives is more expensive than maintaining the status quo. I am sure you agree with at least that much.
You're contradicting yourself - if looking for alternatives is more costly than the status quo, then obviously that is going to dominate the market. The only way to switch primary energy sources is to bring the cost of production below what the "status quo" is today, tomorrow, or whenever. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.
I stated that it did have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses. And it does. GO READ. Books are good for you. Try to find a reason why hemp is illegal, while we used to be forced to grow it during war times.
I am well aware of hemp being undermined as a source of energy, food, etc. by various industries.
The connection you fail to make is that what you deem to be necessary would require even more government intervention than what exists now. You say that there is a conspiracy to keep hemp out of the marketplace - and I absolutely agree with you on that point - but you don't seem to realize what forcing an industry to change it's energy source would entail. In a purely capitalistic society, government intervention would basically be non-existent (except for enforcement of contracts and laws) - allowing a company to market hemp and make a profit off of it if it so desires.
I never even mentioned the Soviet Union. So the reasoning behind constantly comparing what I say to the Soviet Union shows through as a bias on your part. All I am saying is that our "American Capitalism" complete with our rule of law, has done extremely well for us. However, the historic record shows that many other countries, in particular Central American countries, has suffered greatly *DIRECTLY* by our interference, due to capitalist influence. Basically, they tried to make a real democracy, it didn't suit our business needs, so we waged a terrorist war against them. (Look to Nicaragua in particular, if you need an example.)
I don't recall quoting you mentioning the Soviet Union. It was just a comparison - deal with it.
Our "American Capitalism" - as you put - is not capitalism at all. In pure capitalism, there is no (well, minimal) mixing of government and industry. But, as can be clearly seen by reading those ever-elusive history books, the United States government has meddled in different industries time and time again.
The countries in Central America did not suffer because we advocate capitalism - they suffered because of the intertwining that has taken place between industry and government. This is a tiny thing that gets overlooked by an awful lot of people - but it makes an enormous difference.
Perhaps if the government would stop creating these mega-corporations through corporate welfare, increasing production costs (especially for new entries) in various markets through over-regulation, the bailing out of big business when customers choose another producer - then perhaps we wouldn't see so many of these problems crop up.
The whole point I was trying to get at, which is obviously WAY over your heads, is that just because something is good for our capitalist interests, does not mean it is good for the environment.
That statement is irrational - what is good for our capitalist interests are those things which increase our wealth over time. If society sees environmental concerns as being more important than other things in their lives, then they will support them.
But perhaps people see themselves being able to farm and handle their own land as being more important than what the EPA dictates to them as "environmentally-friendly". Don't get excited and bitch at me about how you never wrote that - it was just an example.
Just because we have a jackass president saying not to worry, the environment is just fine, does not mean that it is. Science directly contradicts his hillbilly assumtions. And thousands of brainwashed little tools will not convince me otherwise. Burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer. In fact, it's a horrible answer. But appearantly the country has been overtaken but retarded assholes who have no f*cking clue. So sign right up buddy.
It's funny how you defended your economic knowledge above and then state "burning all the oil until oil is too expensive to use is not the prudent answer". Gee "buddy" - you should really learn how the world works someday.
While I do not base my ideas on what George Bush says, I do dispute the "fact" that science has concluded the environment is in danger. What is actually happening is that scientists are still pretty much in hot debate about what effect human beings will have on the environment in the long run. There are mountains of bad and biased data that have to be climbed over - and it will take some time to do so.
You would do well to remember that the "science" you are citing is largely government-funded research - and the government funds much more research that supports permanent environmental damage than research that refutes it. Why is that? Well - one reason that comes to mind is that is allows parts of government to promote an "environmentally-friendly" agenda - passing legislation that allows government to seize private property and do as they see fit when they claim it to be "in danger".
All in all - those who advocate government-mandated environmental legislation are simply providing a tool for government to see wealth from the population. As much as you want to believe that most people don't care - in fact, most of the sheep have been herded into thinking that they know all the answers and that the government knows how to deal with it when they really have "no f*cking clue" as you put it.
That would cost money, and money is that thing that's really important.
You have totally disregarded the economics behind the failure of electric cars and energy sources in general.
Hemp is one such source [artistictreasure.com], that actually does have a conspiracy to keep it away from the masses, so I guess in some ways that might be right. But still, that wasn't the point I was making.
Your buddy the government was ultimately responsible for killing that one off. Pure capitalism had no say in that. Sorry.
Then I said it helps US have a higher standard of living. Not everyone. Again, this is true, and the historical record shows it.
You're separating capitalism from firm rule of law. And, in fact, firm rule of law is the first requirement of a purely capitalist society. If you realized this, then you would start to notice that the countries who came closest to this goal (i.e. the United States) obtained a higher overall standard of living than those that went the farthest away from it (i.e. the Soviet Union).
Then you basically said I was a communist. Which is a nice little cop out on your part.
A bigger "cop out" is to argue a position that is clearly wrong and irrational long after it has been beaten into the ground.