Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If pollution is harm, then it deserves to be punished like any other crime.

By your logic, we shouldn't've outlawed slavery, because it'd only be outsourced to other countries

Nice strawman. Lets see what other societal harms there are. Divorce, spam, unprotected sex. All seems to be capable of great harm to society yet legal.

Pollution is allowable within permitted levels as an understood yet unintended consequence of production. Exceeding allowable permitted levels does indeed constitute a crime. Pollution within those levels is responsible stewardship of the supply chain.

The point being if one wants to improve the situation beyond the basic governementally acceptable levels, then some incentive must exist to encourage that behavior. Punitive actions simply make companies seek to avoid further punitive actions by looking for loopholes and or moving elsewhere. Same behavior that exists when raising children or dealing with any social being.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I call bull****. There is nothing wrong with the operation of companies.

I'm not saying there is. They operate to maximise profit, and so they create a unacceptable level of polution, unless we charge them for it.

Else the only thing accomplished by punative legislation is the great sucking sound of third world countries gearing up their pollution making machines while we deal with the inevitable gutting and slum creation of our burned out industrial sectors, (speaking of environmental nightmares).

Sorry. No excuse. You want the tax payers to pay for costs that these companies create (plus a nice little premium on top). If they can't compete with the world and pay their own bills too bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I understand that it's morally repugnant to reward people for what they should be doing (like being paid to work). That doesn't change the fact that it would like be an effective tactic.

Are you saying that people should work for no pay, but that a pay check is an effective tactic to get them to do it?

Your pay is your compensation for your work. You are due that not because it's an effective tactic, but because it's your damn work. In the same way you are required to work if you want to enjoy the great benefits of society that they rest of the working people enjoy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why do you assume I'm a violent man?

Short answer, I don't.

Long answer: But you worship at the altar of an inherently violent ideology, and as a follower, it would turn you into what was necessary for "La Revolution" to succeed.

No bites from Che huh? Too bad. Try to stay away from the comic book version. Maybe he will talk to you.

[chequita guevara]

No, man, I just woke up and I didn't get a full night's sleep either. Lemme percolate for a bit.

/me wanders off to make esspresso and breakfast.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You don't care about that. You only care about losing your status.

two things

1. You have very little idea about what I care about.

2. Status ? What status? In thses debates most of what I care about is having the freedom to make certain choices . .. oh ya and I want to get the most value for my own labour that I can ( what the market will pay)

Other than that, I oppose the absolutism that you exhibit on so many issues. Economic issues and societal behaviors are complex and nuanced. Its never as simple as "capitalists pollute" or "Growth Always means more pollution".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, man, I just woke up and I didn't get a full night's sleep either. Lemme percolate for a bit.

* chegitz guevara wanders off to make esspresso and breakfast.

I'm out of coffee this morning

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Long answer: But you worship at the altar of an inherently violent ideology, and as a follower, it would turn you into what was necessary for "La Revolution" to succeed.

Short answer: violence is a necesscity because the bourgeoisie will not give up power without a fight. If they are willing to step down peacefully, violence can be avoided. However, such is not the case.

Let me ask you this question: the US Independence War was very violent, does that make you a violent man?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Other than that, I oppose the absolutism that you exhibit on so many issues. Economic issues and societal behaviors are complex and nuanced. Its never as simple as "capitalists pollute" or "Growth Always means more pollution".

It's not absolutism. Those are statements that generally hold true. So I speak them as truth. You just come up with theoretical examples for when they aren't true and then pretend that they aren't true in the general case.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not going to work. People need to be obligated to do their share. A significant number of people are not going to make the necessary sacrifices if those sacrifices aren't going to make a difference. That's not rational behavior. Heroic, but not rational.

Actually it is rational. People do not ALWAYS choose economics as the sole motivator. As an example, Shareholders of a couple of North American companies pretty much forced those companies to exit from certain African nations due to the human rights situation there. The operations were immensely profitable yet the shareholders voted with something other than their wallet.

Who do you think make up the shareholders, directors and officers of a company anyway? DING DING DING-- People !!! All of whom would prefer to breathe clean air and drink clean water. All of them have an interest in reducing pollution. The key is to make enough of them see that interest as outweighing their economic interest.

Also as legal counsel to a big corporation, I can tell you that many corporations are very concerned about their corporate reputation. It goes beyond mere compliance with regulations and into how the corporation is perceived. Its the reason why they get involved in creating parks or other environmentally friendly activities despite their being no REQUIRMENT to do these things.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not absolutism. Those are statements that generally hold true. So I speak them as truth. You just come up with theoretical examples for when they aren't true and then pretend that they aren't true in the general case.

So if something is OFTEN true you speak as if it is ALWAYS TRUE

Oh and my examples are not theoretical. They are real. . . . and I always try to acknowledge when things are often otherwise than my example. For example economic growth usually leads to more pollution. It's obvious that this is USUALLY the case. But it does NOT mean that growth MUSTequal pollution. In fact the goal for any economic system would be to find ways in which it could grow while polluting less.

An economy might grow 10% and increase "pollution" by 10% BUT if a new emissions device, a recycling program and a switch from coal to natural gas occurred, this might reduce pollution by 25%. Growth with reduced pollution . .. Its possible, we just have to find ways to make it happen.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flubber
Actually it is rational. People do not ALWAYS choose economics as the sole motivator. As an example, Shareholders of a couple of North American companies pretty much forced those companies to exit from certain African nations due to the human rights situation there. The operations were immensely profitable yet the shareholders voted with something other than their wallet.

I disagree. The reason behind that is simple economics. If a company thinks that money saved by having sweatshops in places where the labour and environmental laws are lax cannot cover money losss from bad presses, they'll move. The bottom line is, in fact, the bottom line.

Originally posted by Flubber
All of them have an interest in reducing pollution.

Not if it hurts the bottom line.

Originally posted by Flubber
Its the reason why they get involved in creating parks or other environmentally friendly activities despite their being no REQUIRMENT to do these things.

This affects sales.

[Flubber]

Urban Ranger

My examples were ALL from oil and gas exploration development companies. "Sales" is not an issue as they sell ALL that they produce, ALWAYS.

You are being as absolutist as kid if you can't see that some shareholders will have concerns other than ONLY the bottom line. These are PEOPLE . .. . Now the bottom line matters and for most people it will be the major concern but for MOST people its NOT the only concern.


Think of of it this way . Imagine a product that is needed regularly for $1. Imagine it was associated with major pollution or child labor or something. Most people would buy it if they needed it. Now imagine a "green version" for 1.05. I imagine most people would spend the 1.05 if aware of the differentiation. But ask them for $5 or $10 for the green version and you would get fewer and fewer willing to pay THAT cost of going green.

Its the same with "Buy American" and " Buy canadian" initiatives. Lots of people will buy local if the cost difference is not too bad but then even some of the most ardent opponents of "outsourcing' will buy the imported product when the price gap gets too large for them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1) Every major communist revolution has been bathed in blood. This tells me that there's a real problem with the methodology making the transition from small scale to large.

Untrue. The Paris Commune was not bathed in blood, though it was drowned in blood. The Finnish and Hungarian Revolutions were the same. The Cuban Revolution bathed in no blood, unless you count the 500 executions of torturers and murderers from Batista's old National Guard. Even the Russian Revolution itself was largely bloodless, except for the massacre of several hundred Reds by the Whites in Moscow in 1917. The Nicaraguan Revolution didn't bathe in blood. The Bolivian Revolution didn't bathe in blood.

2) I have often asked for particulars regarding how things will be different "next time"

How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?

3) There is no room for dissenting opinion in your "religion."

Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?

4) The political structure of your idealized utopia leaves a HUGE power vacuum that WILL BE....not *might be* but WILL BE exploited (rather like it has been exploited by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc) to create a dictatorial state, rather than the on-paper utopia where everyone joins hands and sings Kumbayah, and life is grand.

Uhm, what power vacuum? What structure have we laid out? There is no blue print for a the revolutionary state. We could have a series of concentrict legistlatures, as Cuba, or a Federal system like the U.S., and probably a lot of different combinations in between. As for guarantees, you have none. You have no guarantee that tomorrow, the Pentagon won't decide that Bush is hurting the Republic and decide to overthrow him. You have no guarantee that Christians won't decide to ignore the First Amendment and set up a theocracy.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Lenin was no dictator. Dictators can't be overruled by their legislatures, and Lenin frequently was. Dictators dictate, hence the name. Lenin ran Russian only because the Soviets agreed with him more often than not, and on the biggest question of all, his succession, they ignored him. Some dictator?

Human nature. Of course, no one seems to have any information on particulars of how this will be gotten around either.

Who's trying to get around human nature? We just don't accept that human nature is as evil as you make it out to be. Humans are what they make themselves. If it's more advantageous to be cooperative, they will be cooperative. It its more advantageous to be competitive, they will be competitive. What's to get around?

That means "converting" people at the barrel of a gun, "re-education camps" to convince people who don't believe that they're being exploited to "see the light" etc.

And the leap of logic you always make. You have a characture of socialism in your head. You always set up this strawman of socialism from the fevered imaginations of Hoover and attack it.

[Velociryx]

UR:
Short answer: violence is a necesscity because the bourgeoisie will not give up power without a fight. If they are willing to step down peacefully, violence can be avoided. However, such is not the case.

Let me ask you this question: the US Independence War was very violent, does that make you a violent man?

You mean, they will protect that which is rightfully theirs?

You bet they will. If your aim is to TAKE, then yes, I fear you must generally take by force. One of the lovely undertones of your "Revolution."

Che:
Every major communist revolution
Of which there have been two.

Hungary wasn't one. Paris wasn't one, and nor was Finland.

Russia was, and I'd hardly call the Russian death toll insignificant. Nor China's.

Again, small scale, the idea has merits. Large scale, it collapses in on itself.

How can you give particulars to a hypothetical situation?
How can you not? You're the one pushing the revolution. 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? Perhaps by....telling us precisely what you mean to do? Lay out a plan....demonstrate how it'll be different this time around, maybe?

Do you notice me and kid agreeing on everything?
Indeed...and therein lies another problem. Global implementation is the goal, right? Well...global means you get one shot. One plan. Since you can't implement both your plan AND Kid's plan on a global scale, mayhaps a good beginning point would be to come to some terms about exactly what the plan is? Preferablyl BEFORE day one of said Revolution? I would think this would do a great deal to minimize internal power struggles (more bloodshed), and streamline a plan of action, no?


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.

Who's trying to get around human nature? We just don't accept that human nature is as evil as you make it out to be. Humans are what they make themselves. If it's more advantageous to be cooperative, they will be cooperative. It its more advantageous to be competitive, they will be competitive. What's to get around?
Let's see...you don't have a solid plan. To quote from a popular song, "You say you want a revolution" but you don't know any of the particulars, because, as you say, the revolution isn't here yet. 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.

And the leap of logic you always make. You have a characture of socialism in your head. You always set up this strawman of socialism from the fevered imaginations of Hoover and attack it.
Socialism and Communism....two very different words, Comrade. Two related, but different beasts. There are nations in Europe which have socialist leanings and yet, maintain the spirit and essence of the Free Market.

Very different from what you describe, yes?

-=Vel=-