"Clean coal" more republican lies

I certainly don't support genocide, and/or slavery. Both of which have been around for thousands of years before the industrial revolution that you're blaming them on. In fact, it wasn't until the rise in standards of living brought on by capitalism that our society gained the level of education and comfort required to find these things as revolting as we do now.

Are you claiming that child labor didn't exist before capitalists, mills and factories? That too is something that has been around for thousands of years, and not because of any lapse in moral fiber, but because of necessity. It was only when the average families lives improved (due to capitalism) were families no longer required to have children assist in hard labor to support their families. You seem to have fallen victim to the "prelapsarian myth". Which means your arguments logically suggest that life prior the industrial revolution was some kind of utopia. Here's a quote talking about the average citizens existence before capitalism and those wretched profiteers came along:

"When we read that poor in towns and country side lived in almost complete deprivation, or that the average man's income was so low that even a poor man's diet absorbed 60-80% of that income, with bread being the largest part. After having bought their food, the mass of people had little left for their wants, no matter how elementary they were. In pre-Industrial Europe for example, the purchase of a garment or cloth to make one, remained a luxury the common people could afford only a few times in their lives. When we learn that even the cloths of plague victims were eagerly sought by their relatives, when we learn of the low expectation of life, the high infant mortality rates, the sickness which threatened their lives, the poor diet, and the few comforts they had to sustain themselves, than the gains of the industrial revolution, become more clear."

Have you ever heard of the logical principle called "DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE"? It's a tool used by historians (good ones anyway), that says in the absence of force, a given actor valued A over B at the time he made his choice. The very fact that people voluntarily flocked into mills and factories tells us that they offered conditions and promise to workers that was better than what they had before.

It's true that an entirely pure version of capitalism free of government intervention has probably never existed, and perhaps never will. There have been times however, and I think you'd agree, where the level of government involvement was MUCH less. First and foremost, this is what I'm advocating for, LESS. Is LESS government a religious fantasy? I certainly wouldn't call the American government all the up until the 1930s "heavy handed" by any means, especially when compared to what we have now, and yet this was when capitalism and living standards grew the most. The federal governments budget hardly ever exceeded 5% of GDP during that century (it's over 20% now, and much closer to 100% in previous centuries). Yet GDP per capita rose 5 fold during that same time!

Governments have been around for thousands of years. However, I don't buy your idea that we necessarily "need" a government in order to have a prosperous society. Governing means to "Control, influence, or regulate". In pre-Cromwellian Ireland a society existed that completely lacked any kind of centralized state for over a thousand years, using a system of local, VOLUNTARY committees called "Tuathas". So people can indeed successfully thrive without a centralized state, or "heavy handed" government. I'll end with a quote by Henry David Thoreau, "I heartily accept the motto, —That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

 

Yes, it really is a "chicken or the egg" argument. And if you really think about it, the issue is less about the size of government and more about how government functions. or should function.

I am not a fan of bloated government, waste and bureaucracy. But I do believe that the purpose of a representative republic, is to represent, protect and preserve the common good of those it is said to represent. Exploiting resources indiscriminately will increase prosperity for time, it will decrease unemployment for a time, but what good will these jobs be to a generation whose children will be plagued with health problems as a result of pollution? How prosperous can a nation be without clean air and water? These aren't luxuries, these are necessities.

Of course the wealthy can afford preventative health care, can afford to live in or move to "not in my backyard" neighborhoods. The poor cannot. Who is protecting the rights of the poor? Are we willing to tolerate long term, even permanent, geographic sacrifice zones for the sake of a temporary decrease in unemployment? A transient period of great prosperity?

No one is going to convince me that privateers, who exploit natural resources, are going to regulate themselves and allow environmental and safety concerns to trump profit. But that is exactly what must happen or bad things will happen, very bad things. We've seen it again and again.

 

Dammit, I still can't + rep you grassphan....

 

When has there ever been a government that has behaved in this way? You say my view of capitalism is pastoral, I'd counter by saying your view of government is worse. How has our "representative republic" served us thus far? People will ALWAYS, first and foremost, do whats in their own best interests. Are the people in government any different? You've said a lot about what people in power are "supposed" to do... I think it's time to admit what people "inevitably" do when given power.

Agreed, however did you know that the most developed countries are also the cleanest? Especially in terms of clean air and water. What exactly is it that you're proposing anyway? What would your ideal society look like?

 

Yeah, you're right. I have a pastoral vision of how government should operate - equally as fantastic as your vision of Capitalism. I don't know what else to say, except that until we achieve that kind of government, the world is going to have shitty, murderous, polluted places where poor people live, generation after generation, and wealthy, entitled people - generation after generation - will look down their noses at them in an effort to psychologically distance themselves from it and then continue to convince themselves that they somehow earned the wealth, leisure and luxury they enjoy. I'm not ready to say fuck it and accept that this is the best we can do. Call me a dreamer.

But onto your point about developed countries being the cleanest. Undeveloped countries are fucking polluted because of industrialized, urban sprawls. Do think the indigineous people living in what remains of pristine rain forest in South America are living in filth? If their drinking water is polluted, it's because upstream, some factory farm is dumping a ton of shit and chemical waste into the Amazon, not because the Indians are shitting in it. Developed countries are clean because of environmental regulation, not in spite of it.

How many Ayoreo Indians do you know that would jump at the opportunity to go work in some miserable fucking factory? Your A and B choice theory from before is a load of bullshit. If some giant fucking corporation comes in, levels and burns the forest you live in, the forest that feeds you and your family, and then turns the whole thing into a monoculture wasteland and tells you, "Hey! Good news! You can either become a farm laborer or a lumberjack or you can keep doing what you're doing and fucking starve to death. So what's it gonna be, A or B? (by the way that land you've been living on for untold generations, well, we kind of own it now)."

So, would I have us all comporting around naked and subsisting on grubs and grasshoppers? No. In fact, I wouldn't change the way things are very much. But I would always put environment, conservation and humanity above profit. I would put teeth into environmental fines, fines large enough to make following the rules a hell of a lot more profitable than breaking them. And I would make it an act of treason for any "for profit" business or organization to use money, gifts or favors in any form, including fund raising to influence the government in any manner. I would hold labor unions to the same standard. That should go a long way toward "right sizing" the United States government.

Finally, and I know you're not going to like this idea one bit, but I think maybe government should step in and say, "if you want an iPhone (for example), you damn well better be willing to shell out enough to cover the expense of manufacturing and paying a living wage in the United States, because we're not going to allow manufacturers (or anyone else) to enjoy the benefits of conducting business in a free society at a less than 'free society' cost, anymore." If any of this means fewer, or a whole fucking lot fewer, globalist billionaires in the world, so be it.