 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Well, I for one am not arguing in favor of Lassez-faire capitalism, but rather for the hybrid economy we use in the real world.
I'm not really sure why you want to talk about L-F capitalism, really.
-Arrian |
It's a cap/com debate. Ultimately, any criticism of capitalism in general must be a critique of some particular aspect of L-F capitalism in particular. With any other criticism, one can simply demonstrate that the aspect being criticized is not the result of capitalism itself, but a deviation from capitalism - that is, it is the result of not being capitalistic enough.
The only two grounds on which capitalism or communism can be criticized are grounds that the fundamental theory itself is unjust or that the system is fundamentally unstable or untenable without introducing unjust elements or deviating so far from the fundamental theory that it can no longer be properly classified as "capitalist", "communist", or whatever. L-F capitalism is clearly unstable and untenable, but it is possible to make it stable and tenable by introducing elements that are relatively minor deviations and are just.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
In a just way Arrian. Justice. You can't just pay people for not poluting. That's corruption. |
*sigh*
I've been trying to explain something rather simple to you:
If you produce something, you will create some pollution. Sure, if you make chairs in your garage you won't make much pollution, but you WILL make some.
Thus, the only way to totally avoid pollution is to not make anything. That is clearly unacceptable, no matter if you are a communism or a capitalist.
Ok, then, what to do? Well, currently, we allow a certain amount of pollution. Technically, liability for pollution that gets into the environment and causes a problem (where "problem" = contamination above the EPA or state equivalent's MCL - maximum contaminant level) is put back on the responsible polluter.
The trouble is that since the problem often manifests decades down the road, the company actually responsible may or may not end up paying.
Ok, then, how do we redress this? Bear in mind that if we use the stick exclusively, we will create a very hostile relationship between companies and government enforcement agencies. If we use the carrot as well as the stick, the relationship will likely be much more cooperative.
Is it JUST? Maybe not. I would argue, however, that switching from the environment we now have (relatively permissive) to a 100% just system (no pollution!), we will not only crash the economy, we will be treating a multitude of businesspeople (small & large) unfairly. Businesses plan ahead. Their planning is, in part, predicated upon certain assumptions w/regard to the cost of doing business. If, overnight, we greatly increase those costs, we seriously screw them up.
Thus, to me, the most EFFECTIVE (note: not must just) method would be a slow & steady tightening of regulations, coupled with incentives to get companies moving in the right direction.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
ahh -- In all this pollution talk, I can feel good as my corporation probably has a net impact of reducing pollution. We are a natural gas producer and all and any pollution we create is probably compensated 10-fold if you consider the coal that need not be mined and burned if our natural gas were not available.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
On the cap-com thing, I don't see you prevent pollution no matter what you do. People will want to drive cars, travel, CONSUME. Maybe the plan for the communists is one of
1. an authoritarian government that orders people not to drive, or does not allow SUVs or disallows long pleasure trips
2. An economic system where gas/ travel things that pollute is priced so high to reduce pollution
3. No one will have enough money for the present levels of excessive consumption
People like kid seemed to be arguing that growth and pollution go hand in hand. So how does the communist system grow and pollute less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
On the consent issue, society consents to certain levels of pollution through regulations limiting it to certain levels. The fact that a proportion of people don't agree with that level is irrelevant. In ANY society there may be decisions that certain members of that society don't agree with but this makes those decisions no less binding on that society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
I just see capitalism as being the system most likely to come up with better and better measures to deal with pollution.
Now a person knows that if they can come up with innovations that can reduce emissions by 25% this could be an immensely profitable product. Faced with stiffening regulations, businesses that can innovate will do well.
One of my big complaints with communism was the lack of individual incentives or even business unit incentives to innovate. If I am the manager of Factory 12 and production and pollution are within state-approved norms, what incentive is there to design that device?? If I did design it, no doubt the state would decide to put the first ones near the capital. Heck the state might even order me out of my comfortable rural lifestyle and order me to go around the world installing these things. I rarely see my wife and child, my factory is now being run by the nephew of the Administrator of Political Unit 18 and I see no benefit at all except the knowledge that the air is a little cleaner ( and wil be in my hometown when they get around to the installation there.
Capitalism has a problem in that a new device may be considered proprietary and therefore not widely distributed immediately but at least the device stands a better chance of getting built.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If they have a permit, it's no longer tacit approval through lack of punitive legislation (under which conditions the courts could make the company give you reparations, possibly, but that particular aspect of our court system really has nothing to do with capitalism), but direct authorization. In that case, unless they've violated their permit, you can't sue.
EDIT: xpost |
Actually you are wrong. Parties get successfully sued all the time for matters where they are in violation of no permit or regulation.
The problem comes with things like air pollution. Lets say a hundred thousand businesses and 10 million automobiles contribute to the air pollution over a city. Who exactly do you sue? Society. We are all complicit to some extent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Che:
Every major communist revolution
Of which there have been two. |
You got me there.
quote:
Russia was, and I'd hardly call the Russian death toll insignificant. Nor China's. |
The Russian Revolution was less bloody than the American Revolution. Their civil war was significantly worse. China's revolution began with a slaughter of the Communists by the Nationalists, and became a civil war and a Japanese invasions before the Revolution actually succeeded. If you include subsequent events under the rubric of their revolutions, then I should be allowed to inclue the Amerindian genocide under the American revolution.
I would again argue that any communist revolution since the days of Stalin were twisted by him. Once he molded the Communist Parties of the world in his image, it was inevitable that their revolutions would be his bastard children. With his baleful influence finally swept away, we can do better.
quote:
How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?
How can you not? |
To do so would be pure speculation. I could invent a new government for you out of whole cloth, but what would be the point? It would just be something to make up. I'd be lying to you, and I have no wish to do that. Do you want me to lie to you?
quote:
If you don't plan to convert people in the manner I described above, do you not suppose it might be a good idea to try to convince us in other ways? |
What do you think I'm doing now? I'm discussing, debating, etc. I have no wish to convert everyone, to force my ideas down people's throats. I will admit that the "Communist Party of Apolyton" is based on my conception of what a party should be, but that conception is to have divergent views together, and that we don't all have to agree. Bad me for forcing plurality on my comrades. 
quote:
Demonstrate how it'll be different this time around, maybe? |
We aren't Stalinists. We aren't brutal thugs who fear difference. We can see the mistakes made by those who came before us, and try not to repeat them.
quote:
Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?
Indeed...and therein lies another problem. Global implementation is the goal, right? |
Are all capitalist countries identical? There's no reason that all the socialist countries have to be identical. Each country will create its own system that fits within its own national character.
quote:
Uhm, what power vacuum?
Exactly my point. With NOTHING specific proposed and a gazillion different "utopias" proposed....yeah. Power vaccuum. People will...as people do, compete for the top slot. Historically, that has equated to....you guessed it...more bloodshed. |
If the government is replaced, what vacuum is there?
quote:
That smacks of a dangerous ignorance of both history and human nature. Proceed with extreme caution, *especially* since you mean to dictate my future with your revolution. |
It wasn't that long ago that people thought slavery was natural. It wasn't that long ago that people thought that the lower classes were cengenitally disposed towards ignorance and poverty. Today people claim that capitalism perfectly matches human nature, but that claim has been made about all previous economic and social systems. The truth is, peple are adaptable. It is our nature to adapt to each system.
I have no intention of dictating your future. I have no intention of dictating at all. I am no dictator. All I want to do is create a society where we all have equal access to the necessities, where there is true equality of opportunity, and where the only limitations are the ones that keep us from doing harm to others. I think the only way to do this is create a system where everyone is the government, where we all decide together, rather than abrogating that responsibility to a series of elected dictators, as we do today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You shouldn't feel good. Your company really only cares about profit, and you will polute to a point that will maximize your profit.
|
Actually I feel FABULOUS. I have a meeting later and my express purpose is to try to negotiate as much PROFIT as I can from our planned arrangement. and GASP I think the other side plans to do the same thing.
Now I haven't yet figured out a way to profit more by polluting more on this particular deal so I think I'll just pour some oil on the street to compensate for my failing.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2004 21:00
|