Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and the free market and democracy is actually starting to slowly ( perhaps too slowly) to take steps on social responsibility issues. There are funds out there that invest only in "green" companies and consumers that buy the "greener" products. If enough people cared enough about the issue, stricter environmental standards would be applied PLUS more companies would see the profit in being "green". Its a slow slow process.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

People need to be obligated to do their share.

They're called taxes, Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

People need to be obligated to do their share.

They're called taxes, Kid.

I know. Read the thread Kuci. They're arguing against taxing poluters.

[chequita guevara]

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.

That didn't work in the Eastern Bloc. It won't work in the future. Rewards work better than threats. Rewards get maximum results. Threats get the minimum needed to avoid being penalized. This is why advanced capitalism does so well, because it grants some rewards to those who work harder.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That didn't work in the Eastern Bloc. It won't work in the future. Rewards work better than threats. Rewards get maximum results. Threats get the minimum needed to avoid being penalized. This is why advanced capitalism does so well, because it grants some rewards to those who work harder.

This isn't about rewarding hard work. It's about rewarding people for not doing bad things. That's just not right. If you're going to do that you need to reward everyone who doesn't do bad things.

[Kuciwalker]

Kid's right here ( ) - it makes about as much sense to reward nonpolluters as it does to pay people not to grow food.

[Kidlicious]

Kuciwalker

[Kuciwalker]

In fact, my dad pointed out that he doesn't grow crops a lot better than most farmers, so why doesn't the government pay him?

[chequita 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.

[Kuciwalker]

Not really - corporations will just exaggerate how much pollution they aren't making

[chequita guevara]

True.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious



This isn't about rewarding hard work. It's about rewarding people for not doing bad things. That's just not right. If you're going to do that you need to reward everyone who doesn't do bad things.

I call bull****. There is nothing wrong with the operation of companies. They work within the framework of the law. If outside that framework punishment do exist for the corps as well as responsible individuals within the management teams of those corps. And I might add these corps face much stronger stingent requirements than any Joe Blow citizen despite the fact that Joe Blow Citizen and Mom and Pop Dry Cleaning are the real pollution makers.

Whats proposed is incentives to go beyond the framework of the law to incent even further reduction in pollution if that is even a societal goal and I for one am not convinced it is.

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).

[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

[Agathon]

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

Yes.

[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.

I say this because:
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.

2) I have often asked for particulars regarding how things will be different "next time" assuming of course, there is a next time. How will the kinder, gentler Red leadership ensure that the next revolution is not just more of the same. No one seems to know. Given this, it is logical to expect....more of the same.

3) There is no room for dissenting opinion in your "religion." You require global implementation for a system which has never succeeded anywhere but at the micro level. It has never been demonstrated that your proposed system is scalable, but there is considerable evidence that it is not.

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

Conclusion: Since no one has any specifics on how things will be different, we can expect more of the same.

That means familiar methodologies.

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.

In short. Violence.

-=Vel=-