Save the Environment Party (STEP) or The Green Party (GP)

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
It's been addressed in that it's been shown that it isn't a particularly bad thing.

Well, besides from that being subjective, 'not a particularly bad thing' doesn't mean it's been rebutted enough not to count at all.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Are you suggesting that this is gojng to change? There will always be some people whoa re rich, and some who are poor. the only injustice in this is in the reasons for it.

Yes somewhat. Under Planned or Green economies (as we learned from Old Earth) there is less economic injustice. We won't eliminate it (at least, not until Eudaimonia) but we can lessen it.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, besides from that being subjective, 'not a particularly bad thing' doesn't mean it's been rebutted enough not to count at all.

Well, it does mean you really shouldn't keep using it until you can find a way to prove that it is a bad thing.

Yes somewhat. Under Planned or Green economies (as we learned from Old Earth) there is less economic injustice. We won't eliminate it (at least, not until Eudaimonia) but we can lessen it.

Care to rpvoide an example? I know of no Earth example sof Green economics, and most Planned economies were run in Third World area or the Soviet sphere. Neither situation appleis here (and they're hardly situation we'd want to find ourselves in, either).

[Drogue]

True, but much of Europe runs a more Planned version of a mixed economy, and has less of an economic imbalance, than say the USA that runs a Freer mixed economy. Also by theory, if the State decides pay (as in Planned), no-one will get billions, and no-one will get peanuts. The style of FM is one that means that promotes greed as good, and no welfare state (if you don't have a job, don't expect to eat), which will create more social and economic injustice and imbalance.

[GeneralTacticus]

Also by theory, if the State decides pay (as in Planned), no-one will get billions, and no-one will get peanuts.

Actually, it will likely reuslt in everyone getting peanuts. If the State, rather than the market, decides wages for people, then those wages are unlikely to be at their optimal levels, which harms economic efficiency and means that there's less money for everyone. If this is carried far enough, everyone is poor, rather than some rich, some poor, and most in the middle (NB - I am in favour of minimum wage laws and the like, to ensure that people get a wage they can live on).

[Drogue]

Well, that's possible, but with a decent computer model and efficient maths system, the efficiency loses aren't actually as bad as they're often percieved. And FM with minimum wages and other welfare is OK IMHO, especially if in an eco-friendly (Green) system

[GeneralTacticus]

There's no need to use green for what you want, then. Just support FM combined with lots of eco-friendly facility builds.

[Drogue]

Yes, but I'd prefer to use Green, and it makes having 0 eco-damage easier (and if it doesn't, it should!) because I think both economically and socially, a Green ethos is the best way forward, so as not to repeat the mistakes of Old Earth.

Besudes, FM just reminds me of Milton Friedman's famous quote: "The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a proft to its shareholders". This is exactly what I don't want. All citizens, from the CEO and the Commish, to the lowliest drone, should be eco-friendly and try not to spoil the environment.

[GeneralTacticus]

It doesn't make it any easier; Green reduces ecodamage levels that already exist, ti doesn't make them go away. I'd say this represents the fact that if you are producing pollution, no amount of regulation and filtering is going to avert some effect.

[Drogue]

Yes but Green is not just filtering IMO, it's an ethos where companies do not put waste into rivers and the sea, but recycle and use less packaging etc. It's about the whole ethos of non-pollution.

[GeneralTacticus]

That depends on the society that utilizes it. Green is an economic system, not a system of values.

[Drogue]

Yes it is, but we are a free people, so excessive laws would not be much used IMHO (some, but not excessive) and I think it represents values to some extent too. Otherwise what is it? Planned, FM and mized are the only actual 'economic' systems I know of.

[GeneralTacticus]

Green is essentially another form of Planned, in which state controls are intended to rpotect the environment rather than control the market.

[Drogue]

Well, that's your interpretation. I think of it as a mixed economy, with a strong ethos and set of laws to stop pollution, recycle and create less waste. While having some state control (much more than FM) it would still operate on a basic market structure, of competition and choice for the consumer. That's how I see it (and would like it to be) and is what I would support.

[GeneralTacticus]

I didn't say anything about ti not ebing a Market economy; even Planned is still a Market economy to some extent, it's just a controlled one. In the case of Green, though, the control is intended to protect the environment rather than increase industry.

[Drogue]

Ok, I took your

Green is essentially another form of Planned

to mean that you thought it was a virtually completely nationalised economy. I still think of there being less state control than you seem to, but that's a negligable difference. Essentially I agree with your statement. Thanks for the debate, made me realise my ideals again


Edit: BTW, if anyone wants some of my specially cultivated, high quality mind altering substances Xenoroses, all you need to do is ask (and covering my bar tab would be nice )