Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Kuciwalker]

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]

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

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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.

Um, ok.

:shrug:

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think you've only demonstrated only that you are nuts. Arguing against welfare in general makes more sense than arguing for corporate welfare just because you feel sory for a corporation. That's ridiculous.

I don't feel SORRY for a corporation!

That's not the point AT ALL, Kid.

I consider corporations to be important to the economy, and thus the well being of our society at large. Not worthy of sympathy (ok, maybe for certain "mom & pop" operations, under certain circumstances... but that's sympathy for the individual people involved, really, and it's under rather unusual circumstances - typically regarding retroactive environmental liability caused by disposal that was perfectly legal 20 yrs ago), but rather worthy of consideration. It's not emotional. It's practical.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

I support a social safety net, but not out of sympathy. If it were that, I'd just donate to charity. It's because I think a social safety net provides a universal net benefit over the long term.

[Arrian]

Pretty much the same from me. I give money to charity too sometimes. The wealth redistribution that happens via taxes... that I view as a sort of "cost of doing business"

-Arrian

[Flubber]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
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.

They enforcement agency isn't suppose to cooperate with the corporations. That's corporatism. There is not need to do things the coorporations way. We already know what the problem is regarding emissions. That is, there is too much. So all we have to do is add tax to emissions. That's the fair way, and it works.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


I don't feel SORRY for a corporation!

That's not the point AT ALL, Kid.

I consider corporations to be important to the economy, and thus the well being of our society at large. Not worthy of sympathy (ok, maybe for certain "mom & pop" operations, under certain circumstances... but that's sympathy for the individual people involved, really, and it's under rather unusual circumstances - typically regarding retroactive environmental liability caused by disposal that was perfectly legal 20 yrs ago), but rather worthy of consideration. It's not emotional. It's practical.

-Arrian

Then you are accepting bribing them to get what you want? Or what? I really don't see your reasoning here.

[Flubber]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
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.

You shouldn't feel good. Your company really only cares about profit, and you will polute to a point that will maximize your profit.

"I know of no good to come from those who propose to trade for the public good"

-Adam Smith

[Flubber]

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.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Then you are accepting bribing them to get what you want? Or what? I really don't see your reasoning here.

In a manner of speaking. I want to offer them an incentive to do what I want so that I don't always have to bring the hammer down via the EPA.

This goes back to Che's comment re: catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Keep in mind that I, not being a revolutionary (far from it), seek a solution that gets us where we want to go with a minimum of disruption & fuss.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

I don't trust that Arrain. What's wrong with requiring them to pay for the cost they impose on us? Why pay them?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Then you are accepting bribing them to get what you want? Or what? I really don't see your reasoning here.

If that's the most cost-effective way to achieve our ends, yes.