No it is not, and that doesn't have anything to do with what I said, at all
You literally questioned whether someone would still consent to work in the mines if he's mostly helping other people rather than himself with it, and proposed that as "the collectivist utilitarian" viewpoint, which you say would only work if people are forced to do it at gunpoint. Well, that's just silly to anyone who's done even the most rudimentary research on these things.
As I mentioned in my example, people were perfectly happy working in the factories during the '30s Spanish collectivist-anarchistic society, which has everything to do with your assertion that it wouldn't work unless you force people at gunpoint.
They'll take real action when it becomes profitable, like China is doing by investing on "green" energy. We survived an ice age with nothing but primitive tools. We can handle global warming.
China is mostly an assembly line for Western green projects.
See, this is why I don't like talking to you. You don't use arguments that make sense. We'll survive global warming "because we survived an ice age with primitive tools"? None of this makes any sense at all. There's no thought process behind any of it.
Your assertion that we'll survive because it'll eventually become profitable to do something about global warming doesn't take into account the fact that it already is extremely profitable to do something about it right now, but only if you look into the distant future. Every year we wait, we're getting closer to irreversible, self-sustaining, catastrophic warming. Some climate scientists say we're already in it. The damages future generations will inherit, if they can even be expressed in a number, will be unfathomably higher the longer we wait. Yet absolutely nothing is happening, because the corporate system doesn't care about the damages future generations will incur. They're externalities. Your grandchildren's interests have no bearing whatsoever on the corporate goal of maximizing profit.
They're getting free money from each other, from their dividends, from short selling, whatever. None of that affects you at all.
The global financial crises that occurred all over the world and are occurring even right now as we speak beg to disagree with you. So would all the people in the US who lost their homes. They were purposely pushed by the banking industry to take out those loans despite the risks, because they knew they'd be able to make profit off of them even if the house of cards came down. It takes a genius
not to see how this kind of grand-scale financial malpractice affects me and you.
And how is that capitalism? That's being a nanny state for banks. That's manipulating a bunch of numbers to give the impression of economic growth. That's expanding credit to "help" poor people consume (buy things they shouldn't with money they can't produce). That's just mal-allocating capital to stupid purposes, which is completely anti-capitalistic.
I agree, it has nothing to do with capitalism. Under a capitalist system, all of those banks would die. But theory is not practice. With capitalism comes inequality, and with inequality comes concentration of resources and power, and with power, one calls the shots. To put it simple, the banks call the shots.
You're talking about US, Europe, BRIC like they're persons. "Hey, US isn't behaving, we must punish him!" except that you can't do that. I bet you'll never see any real action take place, instead you'll see green washing everywhere, companies doing stuff like "Hey I'll just lower my emissions by 1%, that is ok by the rules, laws and treaties!", while the developing world doesn't care about it at all, and instead of a global catastrophe that will decimate all life you'll just witness the establishment of a new equilibrum. Legislation will serve no purpose other than make people feel less guilty.
It's not about "punishing" the US. It's just as simple as I told you: the US is stalling global efforts to do something about this, but you refuse to even say it. The scenario you describe can be avoided, and the first step is to stop being apathetic.
Because the "left" ideologies are good at exploiting their feelings, their envy, their anger. There's always a discourse involving a victim, a oppressor, and the notion that putting the leftist leaders in power will make their troubles go away and free the victim from oppression.
I'm simplifying here, but it's because the further you go towards the left side of the spectrum, the smaller inequality becomes. The left movements are the only true people's movements. No popular movement is ever going to exist on the notion of giving away the fruits of one's hard labor to a wealthy upper class, except if you indoctrinate people into believing magic like "trickle-down". But keep in mind here that I only used the word "left-libertarian" to set it apart from what people tend to call "libertarian" these days, which is complete and total fascism. The fact that these movements have popular support stems from the fact that they are direct responses to the oppression of the people. That has nothing to do with the charisma of a few leaders. Popular movements grow through popular support, because the values they espouse are already latently supported by huge swaths of the population.
Guess who else favors sharp inequalities? People who promise to make it go away.
There are plenty of liars around. Doesn't mean everybody is a liar, or that you should never trust anyone.
You're romanticizing a factory worker. You're applying the noble savage rationale to them, you're trying to make an appeal to emotion. "Look at this inequality. Look at her, she's such a pathetic creature, why don't you feel pity for her? Why don't you free her from oppression? I'll make it all go away if you put me in charge of your life!". That's a discourse that preceeded countless totalitarian regimes that ended the lives of millions.
I knew this would happen.
Sooner or later, when you're in a discussion about socialism with someone as disingenuous as yourself, the equation of socialism with totalitarianism will be made. Forget the fact I even explicitly told you I'm against that, and so is every serious socialist or anarchist. I'm not asking to be put in charge of anyone's life.
It's ironic that, again, you're ascribing irrationality to me whilst perpetrating it yourself. You say I'm just trying to appeal to emotion. Your response to that is to equate what I'm saying with totalitarianism, without rational basis. It's literally "what you say sounds like socialism, and the Soviet Union was socialist and became totalitarian, so therefore you support totalitarianism". Again, I wouldn't have to make this point if you did rudimentary research. The Soviet Union, particularly later on in its development, had very little to do with socialism. The foundational principle behind socialism is worker control over the means of production.
Also, do you think a leftist leader has more or less social value than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, who accumulated wealth by "doing nothing" and now are redistributing it voluntarily?
Rich people who give money to charity are nice, and I'm sure Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are nice people who like to do good things for others, but I don't see what that has to do with anything or why I'm forced to pick sides between them and a nameless, faceless, undescribed "leftist leader". There also aren't many people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett around, and even after they finish redistributing the amount of money they can do without, they'll still be absurdly, disproportionately rich.
Guess what?
[stupid ron paul pic]
There is no way back.
Fine, if you'd rather curl up into fetal position and wait for it all to end, be my guest. Just make sure to roll out of the way of other people who aren't that apathetic.
Or it could actually make things better because now you don't have an entity that can force you to shoot other people overseas, because now you don't have an entity that can redirect the products of your labor to useless pursuits like bank bailouts, because now you don't have an entity that you can just point your finger at and say it's not your fault, because now there will be no corporate safety net. The responsibility will be removed from a failed instutition and placed on your own hands.
I don't think it would lead to anything except putting my fate in the hands of now unconstrained corporate tyranny. Along with the complete destruction of public health, education, the social safety net and a ton of other things. Remember that I said ceteris paribus, meaning all other things left unchanged. There has to be at least a serious progress towards a socialized society before you can just wipe out everything.
Also, if cooperatives are so good, why do most workers prefer to work for the EVIL CORPORASHUNZ instead when they are free not to? Think about it.
This is why I think you're disingenuous. This is similar to the "vote with your money" argument, or letting the planet get destroyed to teach stupid people a lesson. The reason why people prefer to work in the current corporate system is because that's literally the only way to provide yourself and your family with a decent living. That doesn't mean people wouldn't prefer cooperatives. I'm a firm believer in people's right to happiness. Saying that people should just massively quit their jobs, and if they don't, that must mean they support the corporate system, completely ignores the obvious barriers that exist. I'm not saying that a revolt should come without a price tag (that's impossible), but you shouldn't see people as a herd of animals.
Ask yourself if you'd carry out your own tactic of quitting your job as a way of ending the state, which you say you're in favor of. When you're forced to say no, does that mean you prefer having a state? Of course not. It's a disingenuous, juvenile thing to say.
Gaming World Forums
How do you feel now that Obamacare was ruled constitutional?