as fo. "You solar panels have devalued for 3 reasons"
1. I don't intend to 'sell' it to anyone because it has more 'value' to me where it is.
2. They are GUARANTEED for twenty years!! So any parts that 'wear out' will be replaced free (but being so low-tech thats unlikely.. which is WHY they give a 20yr guarantee)
But even after 20 years any parts that wear out are easily replaced!
3. If a new technology comes along & its as cheap & efficient then I may well get it too! Till then
@nly8nchz .. the reasons we live longer is NOT all down to fosil fuels! In fact without the toxicity many people would live MUCH longer.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to a mother who gave birth to a deformed child in India because of all the Uranium in coal which is leading to massive increases in birth deformities round coal power plants?
To suggest that these toxins somehow are 'good' for us just makes me wonder who I'm talking to here?
You 'claim' plenty but your opinion gives you away bud!
my neighbors bought their solar water heater 10 years before me.. theirs may be less efficient but there's no reason why a solar water heater should 'wear-out'. Its pretty low-tech stuff you know?
Sure there will be innovations & inventions that will surpass these, but we need to start doing what we can NOW! not wait for them.
My panels have already paid for themselves (7x15% is 105%) now its making me profit by saving on bills!
It has 13 years guarantee still & will last MUCH longer than that.
dude I am ONE person & a solar water heater is the minimum we should ALL do.
15% is MORE than ALL the planned new nuclear power stations in the UK.
If we then add solar PV & micro-wind generators & geo-thermal with heat exchanger technologies etc & if governments & corporations then set about the large scale renewables for industry & small 'local' renewable projects to ensure supplies in towns & cities then we could EASILY get by using less energy if only industry produced low-energy products.
How about SMOG for a start? The 'cost' to people's HEALTH can't have escaped your scientific mind?
How about ACID RAIN? (ever heard of that?)
When you burn fosil fuels you turn it into all sorts of complex hydrocarbons that are TOXIC to flora & fauna & it ain't JUST co2 like the fosil corporations want you to think!!
There's sulphuric acid, nano-particles of toxins (which defeat the bodys defences) etc etc
ok I'll TRY to explain to a person who doesn't WANT to understand.
I bought a solar water heater 7 years ago. The amount I was spending on heating water was about 15% of my total energy costs (in an all electric flat)
When I installed the water heater my energy costs FELL by 15% so I saved that money.
That was 7 years ago. It has now paid for itself in savings & its got another 13 years on the guarantee
@nly8nchz.. well I've been studying this subject for the past 30+ years so I feel I have a pretty clear understanding of the 'cost' on both sides of the argument.
The dirty fuels ALREADY 'cost' is a damned site more than 'just' the effects of co2
(how about the millions of lives lost fighting over oil & coal for a start?)
However to use your argument
You too are making 'guesses' that it WON'T be catastrophic for human civilisation (even though the science is very clear about the KNOWN effects)
you seem to have little understanding of the difference between 'investing' & "spending money".
For example.. when you buy a gas guzzler CAR you SPEND money because it devalues the minute you drive out the showroom & also costs the environment
However with renewables you get ALL your 'investment' BACK in savings made on energy bills to mega-rich fosil fuels corps.. so why don't YOU stop making THEM RICH?!
I've never said 'trading credits' would help. But Taxing the POLLUTION sure would!
it all depends what you mean by 'cheap'.. the reason we need to do something NOW is because if we don't the the 'COST' in flood damage extreme storm damage, & extreme weather damage will only get worse. The 'cost' then turns out to be much MORE than we realised.
The only reason you say its 'cheap' to burn coal or fosil fuels is because there is no 'cost' to their pollution.
When industry pollutes the rivers we make them clean up their act & this adds 'cost' but its 'worth' it for other reasons.
"I would answer your BS but the coward on the 'climategate' video has banned me AGAIN.. so much for 'freedom of speech'.. you people always bang on about 'freedom of speech' until someone says something you don't agree with.. its pathetic."
You paint a picture with an awefully broad brush! You people, what does that mean? You talk a lot of talk yet not much of it is worth listening to. Next time you message me, at least include something intelligent insteat of just another rant.
bankok... "you people" means "you climate change deniers"
As for 'solutions'.. there are plenty.. but once again you 'deniers' say "there's no problem its all a fraud so why do ANYTHING?. when in fact the 'science' isl as good as the science showing the link between lung cancer & smokin or HIV & AIDS.. but I suppose you'd 'deny' that too if they came up with a psy-op for that.
With all YOUR rants its amazing how YOU haven't come up with an 'alternative' to taxing the dangerous carbon gasses
Once again, what solutions do you offer other than ranting. You write so much and say so little. You try so hard to insult people that I think you forget what exactly you are talking about...aids, cancer, psy-op...you really took a wrong turn somewhere.
You people right back at you!!! I'm an environmentalist, not a loonbin who jumps on the first hoolywood propped up cause.
@bangkoksuzy ... look suzy if you want to play the cyber-stalker & follow me from video to video asking you innane questions then you REALY ought to READ &(&try to COMPREHEND) when people make suggestions as to what can be done...
If you'd bothered to read my posts you' would have seen exactly what I think CAN be done once the 'Corporate scientists & political fudgemasters get out the way!!
There are donzens or even HUNDREDS OF ALTERNATIVES to a 'Fosil fuel' civilisation!!!
there's an excellent video on YouTube called "The Convenient Solution"..
why don't you go watch it & then look up all the videos you can find on 'renewable energy' & then look up all the things that can be done with Industrial Hemp & maybe just maybe you will START to see that there's PLENTY we can do to escape the clutches of the Fosil fuel corporations & their 'pocket governments' stranglehold on our civilisation.
So far we've been able to pretend the earth is an infinite source and an infinite trash bin but now we are *starting* to run into reality, unfortunately.
So... even if one wants to deny the validity of modern climate science (lol), the fact we WILL have to undergo HUGE changes in the whole economic system of the world, of a scale that's hard to imagine. Sooner or later, we'll have to switch towards a system that can allow for stabilizing consumption level. And, preferably, we should do that *before* the really serious problems arise.
Now, seeing that we obviously live in a finite world, with finite resources and a finite amount pollution it can support, this is inevitably going to lead to resource depletion and environmental devastation of a scale you hate to think about... (given it is actually physically possible to increase our consumption tenfold, or a 100 fold, without society being totally ripped apart by the pathological consumerism it will have to produce) :/
If the world recovers from the financial crisis quickly and goes back to the pre-crisis 3% yearly global growth rate, then that means world consumption will have doubled within 24 years. And been multiplied by 16 by 2100. And by 256 by 2200 and by 3000+ by 2300.
On of the problems with capitalism is that, when it works well, it produces a constant growth rate, meaning exponential growth (in consumption)... and if you have a basic grasp of maths, you understand that there is a deeply troubling problem with the idea of exponential growth within a finite world..
You have no idea what you're talking about. This is a manufactured crisis. Capitalism is the only thing that creates wealth. However, if you think it's just capitalism that creates pollution - take a look at the old eastern bloc countries.
Industry creates pollution, it's a tradeoff, some pollution is unavoidable. The 'warming' nonsense is a political ploy to create a global bureacuracy to siphon wealth from rich countries to poor ones. It's a SCAM.
"If you think it's just capitalism that creates pollution - take a look at the old eastern bloc countries. Industry creates pollution, it's a tradeoff, some pollution is unavoidable." - I know, buddy. My point, though, is that since (1) industry, and consumption of goods generally, creates pollution and consumes ressources, and since (2) we live in finite world, we will not be able to expand industry and consumption exponentially forever.
Remember this.. "The 'Stone Age' didn't end because they ran out of stones."
If a wealthy society values the environment they'll pay to preserve it - rather than tearing it down for sustenance. Wealthy societies are the ones that have declining populations - and the ones that preserve nature through education and enjoyment of the outdoors - rather than fighting it for survival. It all depends on what we VALUE. Market based solutions will work. Government edicts won't.
Ah okay, I see where you're coming from, and I doubt I'll be able to ................... through neoliberal idelogy.....
The concept that actions that are individually profitable in the short term may end up being collectively harmful in the long run, eventually harming YOU too, is, I think, considered utter heresy in neoliberal ideology, and therefore wholly impossible to understand for you (though everybody else gets it pretty easily).
I'll try to ignore your condescension since this is just a YouTube page. You're not grasping what I'm saying. You can't mix government edicts with market solutions. And don't lay the cheap game theory crap on me! People will do what's IN THEIR INTEREST and that includes preservation. You seem to think that market mechanisms are always malignant and can't adopt changing needs. This isn't true. An example of gov't edict problems? The biofuels push raised food prices causing starvation.
"People will do what's IN THEIR INTEREST and that includes preservation."
Well, assuming that people do what's in their interests (which isn't always the case, but anyway), it is definitely NOT in *my* interest that *I* should pay and sacrifice myself in some ways to preserve the environment when I don't have the assurance that everybody else is doing the same. Which is why we need to all come together and agree on a common set of objectives.
The corollary, that the environmentalist movement is pretty much all about people from wealthy societies getting together to agree on paying to preserve the environment, and that government edicts on the matter have so far been pretty much all geared towards finding market solutions (e.g. giving incentives to private actors to develop green energy over fossil fuel energy etc etc), is also probobly lost on you.
This is where you're wrong. You're looking only at the limitation of pollution. Markets can and do value the preservation of wilderness. Hunting preserves would be an example as well as private conservation groups. The main idea is that only affluent comfortable societies will spend money to preserve the environment. Poor countries won't.
And of course some pollution laws are necessary - I just believe the AGW movement is a well-exposed scam
I'm aware that rapid expansion of industry and consumption has happened under some communist states (which, btw, contradicts what you said in your 3rd sentence, lol, but that's another story), but this is hardly relevant to today's world, and doesn't contradict my other point on the systemic impossibility to stop exponential expansion of industry and consumption under capitalism.
"The 'warming' nonsense is a political ploy to create a global bureacuracy to siphon wealth from rich countries to poor ones. It's a SCAM." - Aaahh, I get it now. With all the efforts that Western economic-political elites have been putting in transferring massive amounts of wealth from the Third World to them during the last 200 years,
they all of a sudden came up with a vast conspiracy to siphon a bit of wealth the other way round now. Makes sense!
Lol. The other version of the reason for their creation of the global warming scam, namely that it is a vast conspiracy designed for rich countries to prevent the poor ones from developing is more plausible.
(or it would be, were it not for the way Third World leaders keep criticizing the rich states so bitterly for reusing to take their responsibilities). But, ah, well, I noticed that in the world of conspiracy theory, it's generally considered okay to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, without that posing any logical problem.
By the way, the very fact that capitalism's main response to the problem of global warming is simply to deny it exists, I find quite revelatory. It's pretty much like the Evangelical response to evolution, lol. Ah, wait, I forgot, this, and modern science in general, is also nothing but an Illuminati-Bolshevik scam to take away your freedom.
And don't think I"m down on science. Science relies on RIGOUR, TRANSPARENCY, INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND REPLICATION. None of that is happening with the politicized circus of climate science right now.
And do you really have the impression that the oil lobby and so on, and the rest of the global warming deniers movement are about "RIGOUR, TRANSPARENCY, INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND REPLICATION"?
Again.. you don't address the question - you evade it with ad hominem and guilt by association smears.
The Oil lobby is jumping on the Carbon bandwagon. Shell etc. The global warming proponents are SHILLS FOR THE CARBON INDUSTRY. It's all about money.
Now how about actually reading those CRU East Anglia emails and addressing the obvious malfeasance and scientific fraud they represent. Oh.. yeah, you haven't read them but you know they're 'out of context' right? :)
Okay, well lets see if you can stump me with some of the science then?
Let's start off with, can you say anything against this direct empirical evidence of an increasing GHG induced greenhouse effect in the past 40 years?
Thank you, RR, for finding someone who has a clue what they're talking about and what the REAL issue here is, and not some milquetoast, cap-n-trade social democrat / "progressive."
Capitalists are pillaging our planet to their hearts (read: profits) content. There cannot be an equilibrium between capitalism and nature, period.
Not true... Eco Tourism is the first example that comes to mind. Do you know that the wildlife preservesin India where Tigers still flourish are there because they were hunting preserves originally? Same for wetlands conserved by duck hunters. Anything that has a VALUE can be created, preserved or ehanced by capitalism. If people value nature - they'll pay to preserve it. POVERTY is the enemy - not wealth.
Hello everyone. I (and others in my networks) found a good solution behind this "global warming" situation and energy altogether. Check this video out:
As the "end consumer" you will see that the CLEAN energy is CHEAPER & so you will choose those suppliers instead!
Or if you're smart you will INVEST in some 'renewables' of your own & learn to cut down on WASTE.
Those 'poor' countries you speak of are actually the RICH countries as far as RESOURCES are concerned.. the "rich" countries just PRINT money when they need it!!
Taxes will only make fosil fuel energy more expensive than renewable CLEAN energy!
The 'regulation' will be to NOT burn carbon fuels.. the tax is a way of enforcing it.
The polluter pays.. the clean energy doesn't.
Agreed that 'financiers ALWAYS try to buck the system & blow 'derivative bubbles' wherever they go.. but that will happen WHATEVER we try to do to prevent global pollution & all its resulting catastrophes.
Fact is we either take stock & CHANGE our behaviour or we plough on & destroy life on this planet at an ever increasing rate.
Only a liar could say that the e-mails do not show the myth of man-made global warming to be a fraud that was only propped up by suppressing the abundant contrary evidence.
No, there is is no evidence in the emails that global warming is a fraud. The supposedly lost raw data is still in the stations. The conclusions are verifiable all over the world by other climatologists. The supposedly suppressed document was not suppressed; at most it was an unacceptable misdemeanour by Phil Jones to put pressure on an editor not to publish a paper that has been since discredited, but it hardly makes global warming a fraud. The furor about this is the joke.
First of all, the onus is on those who say it's man-made to prove it - not the skeptics. Secondly, if the CRU and Michael Mann won't share their data and let other scientists (skeptical ones) try to replicate their findings - what does that tell you?
Go and look at the emails, the evidence and stop resorting to 'ad hominem' arguments. You're blustering insults betray your ignorance and the how untenable your arguments really are.
Alberta is not the entire planet. Don't assume that the weather changes uniformly across the entire planet, it doens't. Australia, where it now is summer, is experiencing some of the worst heat waves and forest wildfires in its history.
Yes, buy yourself all the temperature monitoring equipment you can, travel the world over and set up temperature monitoring stations in as many places across the planet as you can, then after you've monitored the temperature at all those locations for two decades, come back to me and tell me that your OWN RESEARCH has shown you the earth is cooling. Otherwise, you are the one spreading LIES!
there is a difference between your own research and your own experiment you ignorant fool.
did you know it snowed it cali and texas?did the burecrats and political figures tell you somthing differently? have you even read how the owner of the weather channel is sueing al gore for twisting data?... do you even know how much hotter the planet used to be? as i said do your own research don't beleive me
SCIENTIFIC research ALWAYS involves experimentation. If you want to disprove scientific theories you have to go about it scientifically. Weather is NOT climate. Cali and Texas are not the whole planet either. Argentina is experiencing some of the worst droughts it has ever had. India's monsoon did not come this year, leading to terrible droughts there too. We're looking at climate instability, not only warming of the mean global surface temp, like snow in places where it wouldn't usually snow.
The global warming scam is based on computer models that exaggerate the effectof CO2 production and are driven by ideology. Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by far. Furthermore there's been a gentle warming trend for 300 years. We're not responsible and finally - with all our emissions there's been no warming since 1998. These are FACTS. C02 follows temp, doesn't lead it and the CRU has been caught fudging data and suverting the peer review process. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING= SCAM!
there actually has been warming since 1998. "Deniers" like to begin from the '98 temps because of El Nino, which made '98 temps dramatically higher. Thus if you take that as the normal starting temp, then, yes temps have not been as high. But then you are ignorning the phenomenon of el nino, which caused the anomoly of radical temp increase offsetting later data. Begin with '97 and you'll see that temps have steadily increased.
You're being somewhat civil so I'll let the 'Deniers' epithet go... for now. There has been no statistically significant increase in warming for 15 years and a mild cooling trend since 1998. 1934 was actually the hottest year not 1998 - and there's been a mild warming trend for 300 YEARS. Do you agree that those are facts? Can you not see that there are serious problems with CRU? There's only 4 datasets. 2500 'scientists' is not 2500 studies with independent data.
The cooling you site since '98 is a result of el nino. Indeed warming has been happening since the dramatic increase of carbon emissions since the industrial revolution. You're being a bit disengenous about the data. They are 4 INDEPENDENT sources, not just CRU that corroborate. Additionally they are not the only sets of data. Others include, oceean temps, reduction of arctic ice and glaciers, reduction in lengths of arctic freeze, etc. al of which convince the scientific community.
You're being disingenuous! you can 't ascribe a 300 years warming to carbon production from the indutrial era. You know that there's no way we were warming the earth from our activities even 100 years ago. The volume just isn't there. Also, those 4 data sets are NOT indpendent. CRU is in collusion with the NASA data and the satellite data is CALIBRATED based on the terrestrial data. John Christy at Univ of Alabama is one of the 'dissenters'. Ocean temps don't support C02 based warming.
The findings of the CRU were replicated independently by groups like NASA, NOAA, and and they matched it. That is a fact. The IPCC takes data from these groups that worked independently to arrive at the same conclusions, and that is why the scientific community is on board with this--along with other supporting evidence such as what I mentioned before.
The sharpest turn in warming has occured in the 20th century and has kept up with carbon emissions--I don't think that is controversial
Screw Science, I know enough about science to know that it's all just selectively testing chosen variables to confirm preconceived ideas and construct a 'scientific argument' around a concept subjectively held to be truth. Of course when the variables do not conform to your ideas, (which seems to happen a lot in pharmaceutical trials) then you just ignore it, deny and pretend it never happened. Science is not honest, if you want science then ask yourself who funds the research.
So, basically, "screw" your mobile phone, your pc, medication, etc. and all the other comforts science has brought you. You obviously don't know enough about physics and chemistry, because theoretical models in those disciplines have to be tested against empirical data; otherwise they are worthless. Climate science is no exception and the models are checked against many independent sets of empirical data.
Yeah? How come they won't give their data over to be tested then? That's the whole point! They've 'lost' the original data at CRU East Anglia and Michael Mann won't give his data either.
They've been subverting the process and refusing to share their data for years!
That's exactly what I'm saying; it's probably not a good idea to have a mobile phone in your pocket next to your gentiles, your PC is wasting your time, and your medication is making you sick. Why? Because science is not geared towards bettering humanity (not that it could offer that much) but it's funded by powerful interests who don't give a damn about humanity. They just want to sell you useless crap, pollute the environment and make astronomically huge sums of money.
"... but it's funded by powerful interests who don't give a damn about humanity." Such blanket statements always make me doubt the honesty of those who make them. Science is not perfect, it does not have all the answers, but it certainly is not the extreme you make it out to be. The scientific community is as diverse as ordinary society, even though most of them might agree about something, like most of us do about murder being wrong.
Btw I major in biochemistry and that's probably why I have such a low opinion of the popular perception of science; this infallible objective realm of knowledge which can be manipulated to solve all and any problem of man. I really think people should know just how frivolously science is applied and wasted; ultimately polluting the environment and our base of life just so we can have yet more iPods and crap no one needs or really wants.
"I major in biochemistry" Well then, as a scientist, you'll be doing extremely valuable work in studying and showing us the hazards which some of our discoveries pose to our health. When you present your findings, I would expect policymakers to take appropriate actions. Scientists don't make the policies, that's the realm of politicians. It is not science which is failing us, but politics and business. Btw, I major in chemistry and I don't intend on doing science for its own sake.
To me it's comical watching all these climate 'scientists' assemble and try to 'solve' this climate problem with the underlying assumption that our lifestyles and consumption patterns don't need to change; that if we can just meet these emission targets then magically all our problems will go away. Good luck. The outcome of this silly summit is that people will think they achieved progress while the reality around us stays the same, that's what this is about; instilling a false perception.
"To me it's comical watching all these climate 'scientists' assemble and try to 'solve' this climate problem with the underlying assumption that our lifestyles and consumption patterns don't need to change" Well, at COP15, it's not the scientists which are assembling to solve the climate crisis problem, but politicians.
The earth has been cooling off. Man has very little to do with affecting the weather. Do a search on a video called "the great global warming swindle".
If we do not put high tariffs on imports now and close the Borders to Illegal and Tax Outsourcing, there will NOT BE A JOB left in America. Adjustable tariffs to match the American Wages, that way the Slave Labor may see Freedom via prosperity if the Country wishes to have American Markets.
Protectionism NOW.
For Greenies, Think how much fuel would be saved if we stopping shipping crap all over the world. The WTO has set up an absolutely unsustainable system..
The real solution to the problem is condoms and lots of them. The earth can only support x amout of people. We should have sent B 52s loaded with condoms and dropped them on China and India a long time ago.
CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a natural trace gas vital to life on earth..... The confabulation is predictable after 3 generations of reinforced herd mentality by environmentalist groups on steroids. Get a grip....this IPCC findings are NOT backed by thousands of scientists. The decision-makers number less than 60 scientists. This interview does NOT represent the overall scientific opinion.
We still need to stop REAL pollution and abuse of the environment to end our reliance on foreign oil and coal to develop alternative power sources. All the working sustainability concepts and goals remain unchanged even if we discover the Sun is heating the planet. Just say NO to the Cap and Trade tax.
The notorious East Anglia emails appear to confirm that researchers fixed the data in order to advance a global tax assault tosocialize the means of production. This is not a new tactic - remember Bushs Iraq WMDs?
It matters little if CO2 is discovered to be a minor cause of GW.
Water vapor makes up 95% of all Green House Gases but the C&T tax is based on CO2, a natural trace gas responsible for a whopping 0.0385% of GHGs. And the man-made contribution is a tiny fraction of that number.
Last April, EPA analyst, economist and physicist, Alan Carlin presented a 95 page challenge asserting that the IPCC departed from the required rigors of the Scientific Method when they failed to re-test their hypothesis when new data emerged to challenge the aging CO2 theory.
But if the IPCC were to dare acknowledge newer data that finds solar cycles the chief cause, the UNs plan to enforce a Cap and Trade tax would go bankrupt.
Water vapor makes up 95% of all Green House Gases but the C&T tax is based on CO2, a natural trace gas responsible for a whopping 0.0385% of GHGs. And the man-made contribution is a tiny fraction of that number.
THE EXHALE TAX -- Carbon dioxide may have little to do with Global Warming after all. Al Gore proclaimed the science was settled way back in 1992. But a lot has changed since then. For one thing the climate stopped getting warmer. Even if we believe that melting polar ice is proof of Global Warming (GW), the culprit is less likely to be CO2 than ever before.
hey TheRealNews, how about you stop spewing your garbage on the internet. i know you think you're saving the planet, but your ignorance is going to end up enslaving us all.
What about all the other planets in our solar system are getting warming too. The magnetic north pole is moving towards Russia and our solar system is getting closer to and will pass through the equator of the Milkyway Galaxy in 2012.
"Redistribution of wealth PERIOD is the basis of socialism"
Redistribution of wealth is simply a name for spending out of an aggregate of funds in a way disproportionate to the way it went in. Acts to redistribute wealth are reversible, but the costs of reversing it increase the larger transfer is.
Redistribution of income could involve increasing OR decreasing the difference between rich and poor. It is welfare to those who are on the receiving end and taxes to those on the transmitting end.
I believe global warming is real & dire! I'm very against "Cap&Trade". Why? It won't work. Companies will pay 2 get carbon credits & continue 2 pollute rathr than change their ways & go green. They'll then pass on their costs 2 consumers. It also going 2 B the next "bubble" like the "tech bubble" the "dot com bubble" & the "housing bubble". The carbon credits will B bought & sold as stocks & derivatives on Wall St & we all know how trustworthy Wall St is right? It'll be our next fuck up the ass.
It someone wants to laugh, then let them laugh.If they want to cry, then let them cry. I could care less. Actually I couldn't care any less...
People who have some actual knowledge and also some SENSE to go with it know where I am coming from. People who have some sense and no knowledge, will learn.
It's just that, y'know, if you had the first idea about politics, you probably wouldn't suggest that something is both socialism and fascism since they're polar opposites. It's the sort of thing one of those Glenn Beck morons would say.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system where the means of production are collectivised.
Fascism, according to Mussolini, is "The merger of state and corporate power"
The second describes capitalism 'as is'. The former does not.
Except that corporatism is an inevitable stage of capitalism.
I just love these capitalists who say "Oh no, that isn't the real capitalism!!!"
Capitalism "as is" was the term I used, and if you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed this. It was not a reference to the Adam Smith version of capitalism which overlooked the merging of state and monopoly powers. That's what happens. Now deal with it.
Actually, redistribution of wealth upwards is a fascist principle. Socialism is not redistribution of wealth in a capitalist system - that is known as 'social-democracy'. I already defined socialism for you.
Capitalism is "SUPPOSED" (<<< pay attention, please) to be a free market. It isn't going to be that - ever. Like I said to Prudence: deal with it.
Capitalism ends in corporatism. The very venal nature of capitalism results in corporatism. Corporatism is merely an extension of capitalism.
"Redistribution of wealth PERIOD is the basis of socialism"
No it's not, and I'm not going to let you away with perpetuating your ignorant garbage. You're defining social-democracy. Socialism need not redistribute wealth given that it the workers control the means of production.
"Corporatism is a byproduct of the state."
And the state is a byproduct of private ownership. You anarcho-capitalists need to wake up and discern this. Capitalism requires the state and the state allows corporations.
"Socialism need not redistribute wealth given that it the workers control the means of production."
But they will redistribute wealth by the fact that decisions are made in the collective as to how the spend the money. There is specialization of labor in the collective, weakening the idea that everyone in the collective is somehow equal. Making equality is more about the defining and supporting peoples rights through a judicial system and less about how socialist a government is.
No! Look, please - I'm a socialist and I know what socialist values are, so will you please stop trying to tell me?
You do not redistribute wealth in a socialist system. You only have to do it in a system whereby financial and class inequality exists. In the capitalist/social-democratic system, social democrats must redistribute wealth 'because' of financial and class inequality. There is no 'NEED' to do so in a socialist system for crying out loud. Accept this.
there is no such thing as financial or class equality. You can never make people equal but through FORCE, and then only equally miserable. Collectivism is totalitarianism and ,well, to put it simply, it's evil.
Problem is - you don't. Because you know that no man lives in a vacuum. If they did, then great. Unfortunately, and in reality, you really believe in the tyranny of the rich and powerful.
Either everyone has a say in the decisions which affect their life according to the degree by which they are affected, or those powerful enough to own the land make the decisions which affect everyone. This you know.
"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."-Gary Allen
And whoever the fuck was stupid enough to thumb down that comment, read the fucking dictionary first, then come back and kiss my ass once you've seen what a moron you are.
"The means of production being controlled by workers is an example of CAPITALISM."
I had to try hard to find the strength to reply to this without just typing "HAHAHAHA!"
Workers do not 'control' the MOP in a capitalist system. They merely 'operate' it. They do not control it, because the state points a gun to their head and says "You work for the capitalist".
"You are trying to say that private ownership of a house is what led to a state?"
Private ownership of the means of production requires the state. What do you think would happen if the state disappeared tomorrow? The workers would have the capitalists swinging from the lamposts and would commandeer their factories. EXPLOITATIVE property, not houses, requires the state's coercion.
"You would have to believe that you can't bake bread without a state...."
No, I wouldn't, because whilst capitalism needs the state to defend exploitative property, communism does not. Anti-statist
If you aren't able to produce anything or provide any kind of service on your own, then you would be doing some UNSKILLED labor for a capitalist and that would be your primary means of collecting income.
No one is forcing you to work for a capitalist. You do it out of your own free will.
You are saying that without a state, no one would be able to privately own a forge for making metal knives and tools and such?
You also couldn't privately own the shirt on your back, right?
Wow. It's like you have this inherent ability just to ignore everything I just said about the state. Why, then, did Charles De Gaulle threaten to send the army in during May '68 and the general strike? Hmm?
"You are saying that without a state, no one would be able to privately own a forge for making metal knives and tools and such?"
No. And if you think that's what I'm saying, you're an idiot and a lost cause.
Oh, actually, I misread that. My fault. You said "privately own" a forge, and I missed that.
This depends. You're not "entitled" to it. You require the state to coerce people for that. You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge.
"You also couldn't privately own the shirt on your back, right?"
No. Apparently you didn't read the bit about "EXPLOITATIVE" property. Do you consider a t-shirt to be exploitative property? You're a bit odd if you do.
"You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge."
You think that the "community" has a right to decide what people can have?
You would find it justifiable that "Community A" says "no one can have Mazda Miatas", and when someone buys one and drive home, then the community can go on the property of the Miata owner and tow the car away and dump it off of a cliff?
Yeah, you're right dude. Sorry. You don't support the state, but your example of communities randomly deciding to throw your Mazda Miatas over a cliff was spot-on and relevant.
You said:"You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge."
With that statement you are declaring that your neighbors have a right to decide what you can and cannot have, and therefore have a right to take or destroy any property that they feel you shouldn't own, which is the point of the Miata example.
Yes, I am, but in the knowledge that human beings don't randomly go around destroying any material objects in a person's possession for goodness sake. What planet are you on?
If you don't want the state, this is what you'll have. If you decide "This valuable bit of land is mine. I'm going to ring fence it and keep the materials all to myself", the people may decide "Hold on - who said it's YOURS?". They may also say "Actually, we don't need that land, so let him keep it."
"This valuable bit of land is Outdoorsblackman's because we say so. If anyone disagrees and tries to take it in the name of the community, we'll shoot them"
"Yes, I am, but in the knowledge that human beings don't randomly go around destroying any material objects in a person's possession for goodness sake. What planet are you on?"
Do you or do you not feel it is justifiable that a man have his car taken away from him because the "community" decide he shouldn't have it?
It depends on their reasons. Since you're being absurd, I'll be absurd too.
Example A):
The community are dickheads. They get drunk and decide to burn your Mazda just for shits and giggles. This is not justifiable as there was no good reason.
Example B):
Your Mazda is spewing molten lava out of the exhaust pipe. Seven children have been burned to death. This is justifiable because there is a good reason.
I have answered. I cannot answer better than that. Your question is just moronic - as a result, it cannot be answered how you want.
If I asked "Is it right to kill?"
You couldn't say "Absolutely yes", because there are some times when it is right to kill, such as when I'm holding a gun to your head and threatening to shoot you.
Now read my answer again and see how this rule applies.
It is justified or unjustified depending on the circumstances, just like killing.
"No one is forcing you to work for a capitalist. You do it out of your own free will."
Except when the capitalist makes a deal with a lobbyist, which is equivalent to a shot to one's own foot.
Slavery should have been abolished. Instead it has transmutated into something much more ambiguous where many people don't realize how much they have been held back by corrupted economics. Economics is more like an "aether" containing both "aregulatory" (cap.) and "regulatory" (soc./fac./corp.) entities.
So like I asked Outdoorsblackman, why, in that case, did Charles De Gaulle threaten to send the army in on the general strikers of May '68 in France?
You are forced to work for the capitalist, or starve. Working for oneself is not always an option, as well you know but choose to ignore rather than lose the argument.
Your example with the tank had nothing to do with capitalism.
In a Capitalist system you can refuse to work for someone else if that is what you wish. Capitalism is a FREE MARKET economy (a market is a system of voluntary exchange).
Someone pointing a gun at you (or sending tanks at you) for not doing what they want you to do is COERCION and is not a market and is therefore not Capitalism. This is Extortion.
1) Define "exploitative property" and HOW it "exploits".
2)Yeah and Auto companies will still be making vehicles and make money by selling them to people that want them.
3)"Who" is doing the threatening?
4) The free market exists, as long as there is no state making it "unfree".
5) If the state does not exist, then the worker/producer won't be paying taxes or be required to have ID cards and Birth Certificates and they will make money by selling their goods/services to consumers.
Communism is the best *Idea* ever, but it will be nothing more than an idea.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
What a load of bollocks ! the data does not prove anthropogenic global warming, invest in Al's companies NOW !
madbillt66 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
Well the trick with heat storage is that you can run solarthermal power, at night
And only a "few hours" is plenty, if we're talking about a resource so massive
A small fraction of 1% is enough
_
And serious though, I suggest you look up a bit on Jevons paradox
Pretty much the only way for increased efficiency to also mean reduced consumption is if you also are increasing the price of the resource somehow.
And I don't see that being politically possible to do on a meaningful scale.
greyflcn 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
Well the problem with trying to solve everything with efficiency is Jevons paradox.
greyflcn 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
Except that dark matter energy may or may not even exist at all.
Now certainly you could say we should work on Fusion energy.
However frankly, the sun is a gigantic fusion reactor that we already have access to.
For instance, this solar energy figure is annual, everything else is total reserves
greyfalcon. net/ solarenergy.png
_
That said, are you aware of the concept of a solar thermal steam turbine with heat storage?
greyfalcon. net/ solarthermal
greyfalcon. net/ solarbaseload
greyflcn 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
So would Solar steam turbines and geothermal be enough for our society?
greyfalcon. net/ solarenergy.png
greyfalcon. net/ geoenergy.png
greyfalcon. net/ solarbaseload
greyfalcon. net/ egs
Certainly I guess, international cargo ships, aviation, and military uses will continue to be fossil based.
However I don't really see much barrier to everything else.
greyflcn 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
"The problem is though, that solar and wind power are not going to be enough for our society"
That is the sort of 'meme' that the fosil fuel corps planted decades ago & you're still repeating it!
Its NOT about JUST solar & wind farms! Its MUCH more than that!!
We need EVERY home & EVERY industry to have a broad MIX of renewable technologies so we don't end up will all our eggs in ONE basket EVER again!
These fosil fuel corps have FAR too much 'power' (excuse the pun) & they abuse it!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@nly8nchz
as fo. "You solar panels have devalued for 3 reasons"
1. I don't intend to 'sell' it to anyone because it has more 'value' to me where it is.
2. They are GUARANTEED for twenty years!! So any parts that 'wear out' will be replaced free (but being so low-tech thats unlikely.. which is WHY they give a 20yr guarantee)
But even after 20 years any parts that wear out are easily replaced!
3. If a new technology comes along & its as cheap & efficient then I may well get it too! Till then
;-)
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@nly8nchz .. the reasons we live longer is NOT all down to fosil fuels! In fact without the toxicity many people would live MUCH longer.
Perhaps you'd like to explain to a mother who gave birth to a deformed child in India because of all the Uranium in coal which is leading to massive increases in birth deformities round coal power plants?
To suggest that these toxins somehow are 'good' for us just makes me wonder who I'm talking to here?
You 'claim' plenty but your opinion gives you away bud!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
LA has cleaner air now because Calif has the strictest air quality laws in the USA.
Its only by passing laws & regulating industry that we will change things.
There is no "responsibly" when it comes to polluting vast areas of this planet for profit & greed.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
my neighbors bought their solar water heater 10 years before me.. theirs may be less efficient but there's no reason why a solar water heater should 'wear-out'. Its pretty low-tech stuff you know?
Sure there will be innovations & inventions that will surpass these, but we need to start doing what we can NOW! not wait for them.
My panels have already paid for themselves (7x15% is 105%) now its making me profit by saving on bills!
It has 13 years guarantee still & will last MUCH longer than that.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
dude I am ONE person & a solar water heater is the minimum we should ALL do.
15% is MORE than ALL the planned new nuclear power stations in the UK.
If we then add solar PV & micro-wind generators & geo-thermal with heat exchanger technologies etc & if governments & corporations then set about the large scale renewables for industry & small 'local' renewable projects to ensure supplies in towns & cities then we could EASILY get by using less energy if only industry produced low-energy products.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
how much dirty fuels COST?
& you want me to believe you grasp basic science?
How about SMOG for a start? The 'cost' to people's HEALTH can't have escaped your scientific mind?
How about ACID RAIN? (ever heard of that?)
When you burn fosil fuels you turn it into all sorts of complex hydrocarbons that are TOXIC to flora & fauna & it ain't JUST co2 like the fosil corporations want you to think!!
There's sulphuric acid, nano-particles of toxins (which defeat the bodys defences) etc etc
MUST I go on?
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@ejbh3160
Well the catch of course, unless high cycle life storage mechanisms, like adiabatic compress air energy pan out.
Solar panels, and wind turbines aren't going to be worth much on a infrastructure level.
You need baseload, and dispatchability for that.
greyflcn 2 years ago
ok I'll TRY to explain to a person who doesn't WANT to understand.
I bought a solar water heater 7 years ago. The amount I was spending on heating water was about 15% of my total energy costs (in an all electric flat)
When I installed the water heater my energy costs FELL by 15% so I saved that money.
That was 7 years ago. It has now paid for itself in savings & its got another 13 years on the guarantee
Show me a car that SAVES you 15% of you energy??
Tell me WHY my solar panel has "devalued"?
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@nly8nchz.. well I've been studying this subject for the past 30+ years so I feel I have a pretty clear understanding of the 'cost' on both sides of the argument.
The dirty fuels ALREADY 'cost' is a damned site more than 'just' the effects of co2
(how about the millions of lives lost fighting over oil & coal for a start?)
However to use your argument
You too are making 'guesses' that it WON'T be catastrophic for human civilisation (even though the science is very clear about the KNOWN effects)
ejbh3160 2 years ago
cont
you seem to have little understanding of the difference between 'investing' & "spending money".
For example.. when you buy a gas guzzler CAR you SPEND money because it devalues the minute you drive out the showroom & also costs the environment
However with renewables you get ALL your 'investment' BACK in savings made on energy bills to mega-rich fosil fuels corps.. so why don't YOU stop making THEM RICH?!
I've never said 'trading credits' would help. But Taxing the POLLUTION sure would!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
it all depends what you mean by 'cheap'.. the reason we need to do something NOW is because if we don't the the 'COST' in flood damage extreme storm damage, & extreme weather damage will only get worse. The 'cost' then turns out to be much MORE than we realised.
The only reason you say its 'cheap' to burn coal or fosil fuels is because there is no 'cost' to their pollution.
When industry pollutes the rivers we make them clean up their act & this adds 'cost' but its 'worth' it for other reasons.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
"I would answer your BS but the coward on the 'climategate' video has banned me AGAIN.. so much for 'freedom of speech'.. you people always bang on about 'freedom of speech' until someone says something you don't agree with.. its pathetic."
You paint a picture with an awefully broad brush! You people, what does that mean? You talk a lot of talk yet not much of it is worth listening to. Next time you message me, at least include something intelligent insteat of just another rant.
bangkoksuzy 2 years ago
bankok... "you people" means "you climate change deniers"
As for 'solutions'.. there are plenty.. but once again you 'deniers' say "there's no problem its all a fraud so why do ANYTHING?. when in fact the 'science' isl as good as the science showing the link between lung cancer & smokin or HIV & AIDS.. but I suppose you'd 'deny' that too if they came up with a psy-op for that.
With all YOUR rants its amazing how YOU haven't come up with an 'alternative' to taxing the dangerous carbon gasses
;-)
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Once again, what solutions do you offer other than ranting. You write so much and say so little. You try so hard to insult people that I think you forget what exactly you are talking about...aids, cancer, psy-op...you really took a wrong turn somewhere.
You people right back at you!!! I'm an environmentalist, not a loonbin who jumps on the first hoolywood propped up cause.
Once again, solutions, not rants!
bangkoksuzy 2 years ago
@bangkoksuzy ... look suzy if you want to play the cyber-stalker & follow me from video to video asking you innane questions then you REALY ought to READ &(&try to COMPREHEND) when people make suggestions as to what can be done...
If you'd bothered to read my posts you' would have seen exactly what I think CAN be done once the 'Corporate scientists & political fudgemasters get out the way!!
There are donzens or even HUNDREDS OF ALTERNATIVES to a 'Fosil fuel' civilisation!!!
Now grow UP FFS!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@bangkoksuzy
cont...
there's an excellent video on YouTube called "The Convenient Solution"..
why don't you go watch it & then look up all the videos you can find on 'renewable energy' & then look up all the things that can be done with Industrial Hemp & maybe just maybe you will START to see that there's PLENTY we can do to escape the clutches of the Fosil fuel corporations & their 'pocket governments' stranglehold on our civilisation.
Now I'm done with you.. have a good christmas
:-)
ejbh3160 2 years ago
With all your rants, I've yet to hear you offer any viable solutions.
bangkoksuzy 2 years ago
Besides, if you are going to take the time to write me then why don't you actually answer my question instead of deflecing it.
Go aheay...answer it!
bangkoksuzy 2 years ago
So far we've been able to pretend the earth is an infinite source and an infinite trash bin but now we are *starting* to run into reality, unfortunately.
Just my two cents
Dalambam 2 years ago 2
So... even if one wants to deny the validity of modern climate science (lol), the fact we WILL have to undergo HUGE changes in the whole economic system of the world, of a scale that's hard to imagine. Sooner or later, we'll have to switch towards a system that can allow for stabilizing consumption level. And, preferably, we should do that *before* the really serious problems arise.
Dalambam 2 years ago
Now, seeing that we obviously live in a finite world, with finite resources and a finite amount pollution it can support, this is inevitably going to lead to resource depletion and environmental devastation of a scale you hate to think about... (given it is actually physically possible to increase our consumption tenfold, or a 100 fold, without society being totally ripped apart by the pathological consumerism it will have to produce) :/
Dalambam 2 years ago
A thought experiment:
If the world recovers from the financial crisis quickly and goes back to the pre-crisis 3% yearly global growth rate, then that means world consumption will have doubled within 24 years. And been multiplied by 16 by 2100. And by 256 by 2200 and by 3000+ by 2300.
Dalambam 2 years ago
On of the problems with capitalism is that, when it works well, it produces a constant growth rate, meaning exponential growth (in consumption)... and if you have a basic grasp of maths, you understand that there is a deeply troubling problem with the idea of exponential growth within a finite world..
Dalambam 2 years ago
You have no idea what you're talking about. This is a manufactured crisis. Capitalism is the only thing that creates wealth. However, if you think it's just capitalism that creates pollution - take a look at the old eastern bloc countries.
Industry creates pollution, it's a tradeoff, some pollution is unavoidable. The 'warming' nonsense is a political ploy to create a global bureacuracy to siphon wealth from rich countries to poor ones. It's a SCAM.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
"If you think it's just capitalism that creates pollution - take a look at the old eastern bloc countries. Industry creates pollution, it's a tradeoff, some pollution is unavoidable." - I know, buddy. My point, though, is that since (1) industry, and consumption of goods generally, creates pollution and consumes ressources, and since (2) we live in finite world, we will not be able to expand industry and consumption exponentially forever.
Dalambam 2 years ago
Remember this.. "The 'Stone Age' didn't end because they ran out of stones."
If a wealthy society values the environment they'll pay to preserve it - rather than tearing it down for sustenance. Wealthy societies are the ones that have declining populations - and the ones that preserve nature through education and enjoyment of the outdoors - rather than fighting it for survival. It all depends on what we VALUE. Market based solutions will work. Government edicts won't.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
Ah okay, I see where you're coming from, and I doubt I'll be able to ................... through neoliberal idelogy.....
The concept that actions that are individually profitable in the short term may end up being collectively harmful in the long run, eventually harming YOU too, is, I think, considered utter heresy in neoliberal ideology, and therefore wholly impossible to understand for you (though everybody else gets it pretty easily).
Dalambam 2 years ago
I'll try to ignore your condescension since this is just a YouTube page. You're not grasping what I'm saying. You can't mix government edicts with market solutions. And don't lay the cheap game theory crap on me! People will do what's IN THEIR INTEREST and that includes preservation. You seem to think that market mechanisms are always malignant and can't adopt changing needs. This isn't true. An example of gov't edict problems? The biofuels push raised food prices causing starvation.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
I graps what you're saying very well.
"People will do what's IN THEIR INTEREST and that includes preservation."
Well, assuming that people do what's in their interests (which isn't always the case, but anyway), it is definitely NOT in *my* interest that *I* should pay and sacrifice myself in some ways to preserve the environment when I don't have the assurance that everybody else is doing the same. Which is why we need to all come together and agree on a common set of objectives.
Dalambam 2 years ago
Your solution works only in neoliberal lala land.
Dalambam 2 years ago
The corollary, that the environmentalist movement is pretty much all about people from wealthy societies getting together to agree on paying to preserve the environment, and that government edicts on the matter have so far been pretty much all geared towards finding market solutions (e.g. giving incentives to private actors to develop green energy over fossil fuel energy etc etc), is also probobly lost on you.
Dalambam 2 years ago
@westcoast1965
Markets can't value pollution, if there's no cost or restriction associated with it.
greyfalcon. net/ milton
greyfalcon. net/ paul.png
greyflcn 2 years ago
This is where you're wrong. You're looking only at the limitation of pollution. Markets can and do value the preservation of wilderness. Hunting preserves would be an example as well as private conservation groups. The main idea is that only affluent comfortable societies will spend money to preserve the environment. Poor countries won't.
And of course some pollution laws are necessary - I just believe the AGW movement is a well-exposed scam
westcoast1965 2 years ago
I'm aware that rapid expansion of industry and consumption has happened under some communist states (which, btw, contradicts what you said in your 3rd sentence, lol, but that's another story), but this is hardly relevant to today's world, and doesn't contradict my other point on the systemic impossibility to stop exponential expansion of industry and consumption under capitalism.
Dalambam 2 years ago
"The 'warming' nonsense is a political ploy to create a global bureacuracy to siphon wealth from rich countries to poor ones. It's a SCAM." - Aaahh, I get it now. With all the efforts that Western economic-political elites have been putting in transferring massive amounts of wealth from the Third World to them during the last 200 years,
Dalambam 2 years ago
they all of a sudden came up with a vast conspiracy to siphon a bit of wealth the other way round now. Makes sense!
Lol. The other version of the reason for their creation of the global warming scam, namely that it is a vast conspiracy designed for rich countries to prevent the poor ones from developing is more plausible.
Dalambam 2 years ago
(or it would be, were it not for the way Third World leaders keep criticizing the rich states so bitterly for reusing to take their responsibilities). But, ah, well, I noticed that in the world of conspiracy theory, it's generally considered okay to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, without that posing any logical problem.
Dalambam 2 years ago
By the way, the very fact that capitalism's main response to the problem of global warming is simply to deny it exists, I find quite revelatory. It's pretty much like the Evangelical response to evolution, lol. Ah, wait, I forgot, this, and modern science in general, is also nothing but an Illuminati-Bolshevik scam to take away your freedom.
Dalambam 2 years ago
And don't think I"m down on science. Science relies on RIGOUR, TRANSPARENCY, INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND REPLICATION. None of that is happening with the politicized circus of climate science right now.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
And do you really have the impression that the oil lobby and so on, and the rest of the global warming deniers movement are about "RIGOUR, TRANSPARENCY, INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND REPLICATION"?
Dalambam 2 years ago
Again.. you don't address the question - you evade it with ad hominem and guilt by association smears.
The Oil lobby is jumping on the Carbon bandwagon. Shell etc. The global warming proponents are SHILLS FOR THE CARBON INDUSTRY. It's all about money.
Now how about actually reading those CRU East Anglia emails and addressing the obvious malfeasance and scientific fraud they represent. Oh.. yeah, you haven't read them but you know they're 'out of context' right? :)
westcoast1965 2 years ago
@westcoast1965
Okay, well lets see if you can stump me with some of the science then?
Let's start off with, can you say anything against this direct empirical evidence of an increasing GHG induced greenhouse effect in the past 40 years?
greyfalcon. net/ evidence.png
greyflcn 2 years ago
Thank you, RR, for finding someone who has a clue what they're talking about and what the REAL issue here is, and not some milquetoast, cap-n-trade social democrat / "progressive."
Capitalists are pillaging our planet to their hearts (read: profits) content. There cannot be an equilibrium between capitalism and nature, period.
kstorm06 2 years ago
americans rather listen to alex jones.
MrSuperpunch019 2 years ago
Not true... Eco Tourism is the first example that comes to mind. Do you know that the wildlife preservesin India where Tigers still flourish are there because they were hunting preserves originally? Same for wetlands conserved by duck hunters. Anything that has a VALUE can be created, preserved or ehanced by capitalism. If people value nature - they'll pay to preserve it. POVERTY is the enemy - not wealth.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
Hello everyone. I (and others in my networks) found a good solution behind this "global warming" situation and energy altogether. Check this video out:
/watch?v=q4E7v4P54JI
Also, Youtube: "Solar Chicken"
By a Youtuber: PAINSCOURT
Enjoy your Holiday.
doctorofghetto 2 years ago
Renewable energy is available NOW!
As the "end consumer" you will see that the CLEAN energy is CHEAPER & so you will choose those suppliers instead!
Or if you're smart you will INVEST in some 'renewables' of your own & learn to cut down on WASTE.
Those 'poor' countries you speak of are actually the RICH countries as far as RESOURCES are concerned.. the "rich" countries just PRINT money when they need it!!
Taxes will only make fosil fuel energy more expensive than renewable CLEAN energy!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
eljbh3160: very well said.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
you could prolly have dropped the caps tho.
rajasmasala 2 years ago 2
@rajasmasala...
lol.. yes the caps thing is just to accentuate certain words so it reads like I'd say it...
Thanks anyway
ejbh3160 2 years ago
The 'regulation' will be to NOT burn carbon fuels.. the tax is a way of enforcing it.
The polluter pays.. the clean energy doesn't.
Agreed that 'financiers ALWAYS try to buck the system & blow 'derivative bubbles' wherever they go.. but that will happen WHATEVER we try to do to prevent global pollution & all its resulting catastrophes.
Fact is we either take stock & CHANGE our behaviour or we plough on & destroy life on this planet at an ever increasing rate.
The 'choice' still exists!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Only a liar could say that the e-mails do not show the myth of man-made global warming to be a fraud that was only propped up by suppressing the abundant contrary evidence.
herbs814 2 years ago 3
No, there is is no evidence in the emails that global warming is a fraud. The supposedly lost raw data is still in the stations. The conclusions are verifiable all over the world by other climatologists. The supposedly suppressed document was not suppressed; at most it was an unacceptable misdemeanour by Phil Jones to put pressure on an editor not to publish a paper that has been since discredited, but it hardly makes global warming a fraud. The furor about this is the joke.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
tin foil hat
MrSuperpunch019 2 years ago
CLIMATEGATE
biometricsislavery 2 years ago
Don't be fooled watch?v=XCncAJnPNqQ
mackraceing 2 years ago
good vid
biometricsislavery 2 years ago
Global warming is a SCAM
mackraceing 2 years ago
Anyone can say that. You don't need to know what you are talking about. The challenge is to PROVE it SCIENTIFICALLY.
wdednam 2 years ago
First of all, the onus is on those who say it's man-made to prove it - not the skeptics. Secondly, if the CRU and Michael Mann won't share their data and let other scientists (skeptical ones) try to replicate their findings - what does that tell you?
Now they've 'lost their data'.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
I;m sure you, alex jones and ron paul are way smarter than this guy, right? Go watch some more alex jones documentaries, clown.
MrSuperpunch019 2 years ago
Go and look at the emails, the evidence and stop resorting to 'ad hominem' arguments. You're blustering insults betray your ignorance and the how untenable your arguments really are.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
Comment removed
mackraceing 2 years ago
Alberta is not the entire planet. Don't assume that the weather changes uniformly across the entire planet, it doens't. Australia, where it now is summer, is experiencing some of the worst heat waves and forest wildfires in its history.
wdednam 2 years ago
the earth is cooling not warming!!!
PatricksTime 2 years ago
Do your own research don't listen to these lying wolves sheep, THE EARTH IS COOLING!!!!
daveyboi03 2 years ago
Yes, buy yourself all the temperature monitoring equipment you can, travel the world over and set up temperature monitoring stations in as many places across the planet as you can, then after you've monitored the temperature at all those locations for two decades, come back to me and tell me that your OWN RESEARCH has shown you the earth is cooling. Otherwise, you are the one spreading LIES!
wdednam 2 years ago
there is a difference between your own research and your own experiment you ignorant fool.
did you know it snowed it cali and texas?did the burecrats and political figures tell you somthing differently? have you even read how the owner of the weather channel is sueing al gore for twisting data?... do you even know how much hotter the planet used to be? as i said do your own research don't beleive me
daveyboi03 2 years ago
SCIENTIFIC research ALWAYS involves experimentation. If you want to disprove scientific theories you have to go about it scientifically. Weather is NOT climate. Cali and Texas are not the whole planet either. Argentina is experiencing some of the worst droughts it has ever had. India's monsoon did not come this year, leading to terrible droughts there too. We're looking at climate instability, not only warming of the mean global surface temp, like snow in places where it wouldn't usually snow.
wdednam 2 years ago
and your trying to suggest we are responsible for such occurrences?
daveyboi03 2 years ago
The global warming scam is based on computer models that exaggerate the effectof CO2 production and are driven by ideology. Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by far. Furthermore there's been a gentle warming trend for 300 years. We're not responsible and finally - with all our emissions there's been no warming since 1998. These are FACTS. C02 follows temp, doesn't lead it and the CRU has been caught fudging data and suverting the peer review process. FACTS: GLOBAL WARMING= SCAM!
westcoast1965 2 years ago
there actually has been warming since 1998. "Deniers" like to begin from the '98 temps because of El Nino, which made '98 temps dramatically higher. Thus if you take that as the normal starting temp, then, yes temps have not been as high. But then you are ignorning the phenomenon of el nino, which caused the anomoly of radical temp increase offsetting later data. Begin with '97 and you'll see that temps have steadily increased.
bachandl1 2 years ago
You're being somewhat civil so I'll let the 'Deniers' epithet go... for now. There has been no statistically significant increase in warming for 15 years and a mild cooling trend since 1998. 1934 was actually the hottest year not 1998 - and there's been a mild warming trend for 300 YEARS. Do you agree that those are facts? Can you not see that there are serious problems with CRU? There's only 4 datasets. 2500 'scientists' is not 2500 studies with independent data.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
The cooling you site since '98 is a result of el nino. Indeed warming has been happening since the dramatic increase of carbon emissions since the industrial revolution. You're being a bit disengenous about the data. They are 4 INDEPENDENT sources, not just CRU that corroborate. Additionally they are not the only sets of data. Others include, oceean temps, reduction of arctic ice and glaciers, reduction in lengths of arctic freeze, etc. al of which convince the scientific community.
bachandl1 2 years ago
You're being disingenuous! you can 't ascribe a 300 years warming to carbon production from the indutrial era. You know that there's no way we were warming the earth from our activities even 100 years ago. The volume just isn't there. Also, those 4 data sets are NOT indpendent. CRU is in collusion with the NASA data and the satellite data is CALIBRATED based on the terrestrial data. John Christy at Univ of Alabama is one of the 'dissenters'. Ocean temps don't support C02 based warming.
westcoast1965 2 years ago
The findings of the CRU were replicated independently by groups like NASA, NOAA, and and they matched it. That is a fact. The IPCC takes data from these groups that worked independently to arrive at the same conclusions, and that is why the scientific community is on board with this--along with other supporting evidence such as what I mentioned before.
The sharpest turn in warming has occured in the 20th century and has kept up with carbon emissions--I don't think that is controversial
bachandl1 2 years ago
Screw Science, I know enough about science to know that it's all just selectively testing chosen variables to confirm preconceived ideas and construct a 'scientific argument' around a concept subjectively held to be truth. Of course when the variables do not conform to your ideas, (which seems to happen a lot in pharmaceutical trials) then you just ignore it, deny and pretend it never happened. Science is not honest, if you want science then ask yourself who funds the research.
superheronumber1 2 years ago
So, basically, "screw" your mobile phone, your pc, medication, etc. and all the other comforts science has brought you. You obviously don't know enough about physics and chemistry, because theoretical models in those disciplines have to be tested against empirical data; otherwise they are worthless. Climate science is no exception and the models are checked against many independent sets of empirical data.
wdednam 2 years ago
Yeah? How come they won't give their data over to be tested then? That's the whole point! They've 'lost' the original data at CRU East Anglia and Michael Mann won't give his data either.
They've been subverting the process and refusing to share their data for years!
westcoast1965 2 years ago
That's exactly what I'm saying; it's probably not a good idea to have a mobile phone in your pocket next to your gentiles, your PC is wasting your time, and your medication is making you sick. Why? Because science is not geared towards bettering humanity (not that it could offer that much) but it's funded by powerful interests who don't give a damn about humanity. They just want to sell you useless crap, pollute the environment and make astronomically huge sums of money.
superheronumber1 2 years ago
"... but it's funded by powerful interests who don't give a damn about humanity." Such blanket statements always make me doubt the honesty of those who make them. Science is not perfect, it does not have all the answers, but it certainly is not the extreme you make it out to be. The scientific community is as diverse as ordinary society, even though most of them might agree about something, like most of us do about murder being wrong.
wdednam 2 years ago
Btw I major in biochemistry and that's probably why I have such a low opinion of the popular perception of science; this infallible objective realm of knowledge which can be manipulated to solve all and any problem of man. I really think people should know just how frivolously science is applied and wasted; ultimately polluting the environment and our base of life just so we can have yet more iPods and crap no one needs or really wants.
superheronumber1 2 years ago
"I major in biochemistry" Well then, as a scientist, you'll be doing extremely valuable work in studying and showing us the hazards which some of our discoveries pose to our health. When you present your findings, I would expect policymakers to take appropriate actions. Scientists don't make the policies, that's the realm of politicians. It is not science which is failing us, but politics and business. Btw, I major in chemistry and I don't intend on doing science for its own sake.
wdednam 2 years ago
To me it's comical watching all these climate 'scientists' assemble and try to 'solve' this climate problem with the underlying assumption that our lifestyles and consumption patterns don't need to change; that if we can just meet these emission targets then magically all our problems will go away. Good luck. The outcome of this silly summit is that people will think they achieved progress while the reality around us stays the same, that's what this is about; instilling a false perception.
superheronumber1 2 years ago
"To me it's comical watching all these climate 'scientists' assemble and try to 'solve' this climate problem with the underlying assumption that our lifestyles and consumption patterns don't need to change" Well, at COP15, it's not the scientists which are assembling to solve the climate crisis problem, but politicians.
wdednam 2 years ago
what a load of crap
humzilla707 2 years ago
The earth has been cooling off. Man has very little to do with affecting the weather. Do a search on a video called "the great global warming swindle".
They are trying to tax us for breathing.
bgayle924 2 years ago
Does anyone thinks it funny that Mount St Helen's released more carbon in one day than the whole industrial revolution.
btigtime2 2 years ago 2
Less so than the rest of the Alphabet News.
btigtime2 2 years ago
If we do not put high tariffs on imports now and close the Borders to Illegal and Tax Outsourcing, there will NOT BE A JOB left in America. Adjustable tariffs to match the American Wages, that way the Slave Labor may see Freedom via prosperity if the Country wishes to have American Markets.
Protectionism NOW.
For Greenies, Think how much fuel would be saved if we stopping shipping crap all over the world. The WTO has set up an absolutely unsustainable system..
Our leadership is Treasonous.
btigtime2 2 years ago
The real solution to the problem is condoms and lots of them. The earth can only support x amout of people. We should have sent B 52s loaded with condoms and dropped them on China and India a long time ago.
alstarii 2 years ago
Sounds like "negative eugenics."
jayflo92008 2 years ago
My comment got deleted!
Pnkbong 2 years ago
The global warming scam passed by Congress. Goldman Sachs is in the middle of it, as usual a potential trillion dollar sure thing.
And Former Vice President Al Gore who will profit from the cap-and-trade plan through his company, Generation Investment Management,
Gore is joined by three former Goldman Sachs heads in their carbon offsets business.
RomeoMD25 2 years ago 2
CO2 is NOT pollution. It's a natural trace gas vital to life on earth..... The confabulation is predictable after 3 generations of reinforced herd mentality by environmentalist groups on steroids. Get a grip....this IPCC findings are NOT backed by thousands of scientists. The decision-makers number less than 60 scientists. This interview does NOT represent the overall scientific opinion.
911PLANET 2 years ago
We still need to stop REAL pollution and abuse of the environment to end our reliance on foreign oil and coal to develop alternative power sources. All the working sustainability concepts and goals remain unchanged even if we discover the Sun is heating the planet. Just say NO to the Cap and Trade tax.
911PLANET 2 years ago
The notorious East Anglia emails appear to confirm that researchers fixed the data in order to advance a global tax assault tosocialize the means of production. This is not a new tactic - remember Bushs Iraq WMDs?
It matters little if CO2 is discovered to be a minor cause of GW.
911PLANET 2 years ago
Water vapor makes up 95% of all Green House Gases but the C&T tax is based on CO2, a natural trace gas responsible for a whopping 0.0385% of GHGs. And the man-made contribution is a tiny fraction of that number.
Last April, EPA analyst, economist and physicist, Alan Carlin presented a 95 page challenge asserting that the IPCC departed from the required rigors of the Scientific Method when they failed to re-test their hypothesis when new data emerged to challenge the aging CO2 theory.
911PLANET 2 years ago
But if the IPCC were to dare acknowledge newer data that finds solar cycles the chief cause, the UNs plan to enforce a Cap and Trade tax would go bankrupt.
Water vapor makes up 95% of all Green House Gases but the C&T tax is based on CO2, a natural trace gas responsible for a whopping 0.0385% of GHGs. And the man-made contribution is a tiny fraction of that number.
911PLANET 2 years ago
THE EXHALE TAX -- Carbon dioxide may have little to do with Global Warming after all. Al Gore proclaimed the science was settled way back in 1992. But a lot has changed since then. For one thing the climate stopped getting warmer. Even if we believe that melting polar ice is proof of Global Warming (GW), the culprit is less likely to be CO2 than ever before.
911PLANET 2 years ago
hey TheRealNews, how about you stop spewing your garbage on the internet. i know you think you're saving the planet, but your ignorance is going to end up enslaving us all.
amagilly 2 years ago
What about all the other planets in our solar system are getting warming too. The magnetic north pole is moving towards Russia and our solar system is getting closer to and will pass through the equator of the Milkyway Galaxy in 2012.
Pnkbong 2 years ago
"Redistribution of wealth PERIOD is the basis of socialism"
Redistribution of wealth is simply a name for spending out of an aggregate of funds in a way disproportionate to the way it went in. Acts to redistribute wealth are reversible, but the costs of reversing it increase the larger transfer is.
Redistribution of income could involve increasing OR decreasing the difference between rich and poor. It is welfare to those who are on the receiving end and taxes to those on the transmitting end.
kmarinas86 2 years ago
misesdotorg
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
I believe in the precautionary principle.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
NOPENHAGEN!!!
EndTheFedRes 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe global warming is real & dire! I'm very against "Cap&Trade". Why? It won't work. Companies will pay 2 get carbon credits & continue 2 pollute rathr than change their ways & go green. They'll then pass on their costs 2 consumers. It also going 2 B the next "bubble" like the "tech bubble" the "dot com bubble" & the "housing bubble". The carbon credits will B bought & sold as stocks & derivatives on Wall St & we all know how trustworthy Wall St is right? It'll be our next fuck up the ass.
JixMa 2 years ago
Comment removed
JixMa 2 years ago
Wow, I love the fact that Minqi Li is saying things like "since we right now still live in a Capitalist system, unfortunately".
People are starting to realise Capitalism has to be done away with.
PS. Go Zeitgeist Movement! ;)
VolcanicPenguin 2 years ago 2
There is no capitalist system....
Maybe partially but for the most part we have a mixed economy with plenty of SOCIALISM AND FASCISM.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Say something sensible or don't say anything at all.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
If you don't have any sense, then you can't make sense out of anything, and therefore everything would seem non sensible to you...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
.......
If only you had taken my advice, people wouldn't laugh at you when they read this.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
It someone wants to laugh, then let them laugh.If they want to cry, then let them cry. I could care less. Actually I couldn't care any less...
People who have some actual knowledge and also some SENSE to go with it know where I am coming from. People who have some sense and no knowledge, will learn.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
How arcane.
It's just that, y'know, if you had the first idea about politics, you probably wouldn't suggest that something is both socialism and fascism since they're polar opposites. It's the sort of thing one of those Glenn Beck morons would say.
Socialism is a socioeconomic system where the means of production are collectivised.
Fascism, according to Mussolini, is "The merger of state and corporate power"
The second describes capitalism 'as is'. The former does not.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Capitalism is not fascism. Corporatism is.
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
Except that corporatism is an inevitable stage of capitalism.
I just love these capitalists who say "Oh no, that isn't the real capitalism!!!"
Capitalism "as is" was the term I used, and if you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed this. It was not a reference to the Adam Smith version of capitalism which overlooked the merging of state and monopoly powers. That's what happens. Now deal with it.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Corporatism is sustained by the STATE.
REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is a SOCIALIST principle.
State and monopoly (corporate) power merge is FASCISM.
Capitalism is a FREE MARKET, which is not present in modern economy.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Actually, redistribution of wealth upwards is a fascist principle. Socialism is not redistribution of wealth in a capitalist system - that is known as 'social-democracy'. I already defined socialism for you.
Capitalism is "SUPPOSED" (<<< pay attention, please) to be a free market. It isn't going to be that - ever. Like I said to Prudence: deal with it.
Capitalism ends in corporatism. The very venal nature of capitalism results in corporatism. Corporatism is merely an extension of capitalism.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Redistribution of wealth PERIOD is the basis of socialism. Somebody gets welfare, which is money that is stolen from people who EARN income.
If there is no free market, then you don't have capitalism.
You don't know what capitalism is.
Corporatism is a byproduct of the state.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"Redistribution of wealth PERIOD is the basis of socialism"
No it's not, and I'm not going to let you away with perpetuating your ignorant garbage. You're defining social-democracy. Socialism need not redistribute wealth given that it the workers control the means of production.
"Corporatism is a byproduct of the state."
And the state is a byproduct of private ownership. You anarcho-capitalists need to wake up and discern this. Capitalism requires the state and the state allows corporations.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"Socialism need not redistribute wealth given that it the workers control the means of production."
But they will redistribute wealth by the fact that decisions are made in the collective as to how the spend the money. There is specialization of labor in the collective, weakening the idea that everyone in the collective is somehow equal. Making equality is more about the defining and supporting peoples rights through a judicial system and less about how socialist a government is.
kmarinas86 2 years ago
No! Look, please - I'm a socialist and I know what socialist values are, so will you please stop trying to tell me?
You do not redistribute wealth in a socialist system. You only have to do it in a system whereby financial and class inequality exists. In the capitalist/social-democratic system, social democrats must redistribute wealth 'because' of financial and class inequality. There is no 'NEED' to do so in a socialist system for crying out loud. Accept this.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
there is no such thing as financial or class equality. You can never make people equal but through FORCE, and then only equally miserable. Collectivism is totalitarianism and ,well, to put it simply, it's evil.
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
Utter drivvel. Look up totalitarianism in a dictionary, then see how pure democracy doesn't work with it for yourself.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
democracy is mob rule and is also evil.
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
Ah, I see. So you prefer the rule of a small minority?
Well, what can I say? You're the epitome of justice.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I prefer the rule of the smallest minority- the individual. :)
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
Yeah, lovely soundbyte there, Prudence.
Problem is - you don't. Because you know that no man lives in a vacuum. If they did, then great. Unfortunately, and in reality, you really believe in the tyranny of the rich and powerful.
Either everyone has a say in the decisions which affect their life according to the degree by which they are affected, or those powerful enough to own the land make the decisions which affect everyone. This you know.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."-Gary Allen
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
Gary Allen is a philistine, and you're even more cretinous for listening to his shite.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
again, pure democracy is mob rule. the majority has no right to infringe on the inherent rights of the individual.
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
And so again, we see Prudence "Justice" Wright arguing against democracy, and hence, for the rule of the few.
What. A. Cunt.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I'm arguing for the rule of the individual.
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
And whoever the fuck was stupid enough to thumb down that comment, read the fucking dictionary first, then come back and kiss my ass once you've seen what a moron you are.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
The means of production being controlled by workers is an example of CAPITALISM.
I make a knife and sell it and I make the money off of the knife. I have capitalised on my productive means in order to make a profit.
"the state is a byproduct of private ownership."
You are trying to say that private ownership of a house is what led to a state?
Capitalism requires a state? You would have to believe that you can't bake bread without a state....
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"The means of production being controlled by workers is an example of CAPITALISM."
I had to try hard to find the strength to reply to this without just typing "HAHAHAHA!"
Workers do not 'control' the MOP in a capitalist system. They merely 'operate' it. They do not control it, because the state points a gun to their head and says "You work for the capitalist".
"You are trying to say that private ownership of a house is what led to a state?"
No. If you believe that, you are crazed. Cont...
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Private ownership of the means of production requires the state. What do you think would happen if the state disappeared tomorrow? The workers would have the capitalists swinging from the lamposts and would commandeer their factories. EXPLOITATIVE property, not houses, requires the state's coercion.
"You would have to believe that you can't bake bread without a state...."
No, I wouldn't, because whilst capitalism needs the state to defend exploitative property, communism does not. Anti-statist
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
If you aren't able to produce anything or provide any kind of service on your own, then you would be doing some UNSKILLED labor for a capitalist and that would be your primary means of collecting income.
No one is forcing you to work for a capitalist. You do it out of your own free will.
You are saying that without a state, no one would be able to privately own a forge for making metal knives and tools and such?
You also couldn't privately own the shirt on your back, right?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"No one is forcing you to work for a capitalist."
Wow. It's like you have this inherent ability just to ignore everything I just said about the state. Why, then, did Charles De Gaulle threaten to send the army in during May '68 and the general strike? Hmm?
"You are saying that without a state, no one would be able to privately own a forge for making metal knives and tools and such?"
No. And if you think that's what I'm saying, you're an idiot and a lost cause.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Oh, actually, I misread that. My fault. You said "privately own" a forge, and I missed that.
This depends. You're not "entitled" to it. You require the state to coerce people for that. You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge.
"You also couldn't privately own the shirt on your back, right?"
No. Apparently you didn't read the bit about "EXPLOITATIVE" property. Do you consider a t-shirt to be exploitative property? You're a bit odd if you do.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge."
You think that the "community" has a right to decide what people can have?
You would find it justifiable that "Community A" says "no one can have Mazda Miatas", and when someone buys one and drive home, then the community can go on the property of the Miata owner and tow the car away and dump it off of a cliff?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"You think that the "community" has a right to decide what people can have?"
Yes. You think the state has the right to decide that you get to own the land and the means of production and I just have to work it for you?
I thought you don't like the state? Now you seem to love it, because you see how necessary it is for your precious capitalism.
"You would find it justifiable that "Community A" says "no one can have Mazda Miatas""
This is a useless and absurd example. Back in the real world..
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
where I'm from...
People respect the rights of individuals. They respect your right to have a toothbrush, to have a bed, a house.
I'm going to say this one last time. Read it this time.
"EXPLOITATIVE PROPERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
A Mazda Miatas is not exploitative property.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"Exploitative property" is BS....
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I mentioned nothing at all about a state deciding ownership, nor did I say I supported a state.
Samson, if my example with the Miata went over your head, then you do not have your head in the real world...
It seems to me you have a problem understanding things in a PRACTICAL way.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Yeah, you're right dude. Sorry. You don't support the state, but your example of communities randomly deciding to throw your Mazda Miatas over a cliff was spot-on and relevant.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
You said:"You may still have it, providing a community doesn't mind you having your own little forge."
With that statement you are declaring that your neighbors have a right to decide what you can and cannot have, and therefore have a right to take or destroy any property that they feel you shouldn't own, which is the point of the Miata example.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Yes, I am, but in the knowledge that human beings don't randomly go around destroying any material objects in a person's possession for goodness sake. What planet are you on?
If you don't want the state, this is what you'll have. If you decide "This valuable bit of land is mine. I'm going to ring fence it and keep the materials all to myself", the people may decide "Hold on - who said it's YOURS?". They may also say "Actually, we don't need that land, so let him keep it."
What the state does
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
is say:
"This valuable bit of land is Outdoorsblackman's because we say so. If anyone disagrees and tries to take it in the name of the community, we'll shoot them"
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"Yes, I am, but in the knowledge that human beings don't randomly go around destroying any material objects in a person's possession for goodness sake. What planet are you on?"
Do you or do you not feel it is justifiable that a man have his car taken away from him because the "community" decide he shouldn't have it?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
It depends on their reasons. Since you're being absurd, I'll be absurd too.
Example A):
The community are dickheads. They get drunk and decide to burn your Mazda just for shits and giggles. This is not justifiable as there was no good reason.
Example B):
Your Mazda is spewing molten lava out of the exhaust pipe. Seven children have been burned to death. This is justifiable because there is a good reason.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Now you are bending reality and not giving a straight answer to the Mazda Question.
Is it or is it not right for the "community" to take your property from you? This includes the shirt on your back.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I have answered. I cannot answer better than that. Your question is just moronic - as a result, it cannot be answered how you want.
If I asked "Is it right to kill?"
You couldn't say "Absolutely yes", because there are some times when it is right to kill, such as when I'm holding a gun to your head and threatening to shoot you.
Now read my answer again and see how this rule applies.
It is justified or unjustified depending on the circumstances, just like killing.
Don't be an stupid arse.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
It seems that "absurd" to you simply means "out of the [what you consider to be] ordinary".
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
"No one is forcing you to work for a capitalist. You do it out of your own free will."
Except when the capitalist makes a deal with a lobbyist, which is equivalent to a shot to one's own foot.
Slavery should have been abolished. Instead it has transmutated into something much more ambiguous where many people don't realize how much they have been held back by corrupted economics. Economics is more like an "aether" containing both "aregulatory" (cap.) and "regulatory" (soc./fac./corp.) entities.
kmarinas86 2 years ago
What do you care if a capitalist makes a "deal" with some lobbyist?
"Corrupted economics"?
A system where a corrupt entity (state) is in control of the economic system?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Do you know what an "externality" is?
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
In a capitalist system, people can work for themselves or for someone else if they choose. Nobody is forced to do anything,
PrudenceWright 2 years ago
So like I asked Outdoorsblackman, why, in that case, did Charles De Gaulle threaten to send the army in on the general strikers of May '68 in France?
You are forced to work for the capitalist, or starve. Working for oneself is not always an option, as well you know but choose to ignore rather than lose the argument.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Your example with the tank had nothing to do with capitalism.
In a Capitalist system you can refuse to work for someone else if that is what you wish. Capitalism is a FREE MARKET economy (a market is a system of voluntary exchange).
Someone pointing a gun at you (or sending tanks at you) for not doing what they want you to do is COERCION and is not a market and is therefore not Capitalism. This is Extortion.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I didn't mention a tank, but that doesn't matter - it still is capitalism.
Why? Let's go over what I've said so far.
1) Exploitative property requires the state.
2) If the state wasn't there, workers would seize the MOP.
3) When the workers said they wouldn't work for the capitalist, they were threatened with violence.
4) The free-market economy does not exist, because the state is required.
5) If the state does not exist, there will be no free-market economy, see number 2)
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
1) Define "exploitative property" and HOW it "exploits".
2)Yeah and Auto companies will still be making vehicles and make money by selling them to people that want them.
3)"Who" is doing the threatening?
4) The free market exists, as long as there is no state making it "unfree".
5) If the state does not exist, then the worker/producer won't be paying taxes or be required to have ID cards and Birth Certificates and they will make money by selling their goods/services to consumers.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago