EPTThe problem with the fuel tax isn't that it's "climate alarmist" or whatever. We should be alarmed. The problem is that as usual it fails to address the actual issue, which in this case is the capitalist class getting to do whatever it wants for profit regardless of how it impacts the planet because free market is a religion, and it puts the onus on the people - we have to take some personal res-pon-sa-bi-li-ty and change our ways for the planet, even though our ecological impact, even as first worlders, is tragically minor compared to that of the business world.
US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 100
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
The problem with the fuel tax isn't that it's "climate alarmist" or whatever. We should be alarmed. The problem is that as usual it fails to address the actual issue, which in this case is the capitalist class getting to do whatever it wants for profit regardless of how it impacts the planet because free market is a religion, and it puts the onus on the people - we have to take some personal res-pon-sa-bi-li-ty and change our ways for the planet, even though our ecological impact, even as first worlders, is tragically minor compared to that of the business world. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 11 2018 06:42 xDaunt wrote: I've been wanting to talk about this for a while, but haven't had the time. What do we think about the unrest in France? A couple thoughts immediately come to mind. First and foremost, we are seeing the political limits of climate change alarmism. My biggest point against liberal climate change policy has been the true cost of the actions that the alarmists recommend to combat global warming and carbon emissions are simply too much for society to bear (never mind the highly questionable science upon which those actions are recommended). If the French are going to revolt over massive carbon taxes, there is no prayer that a majority of Americans is going to accept them. Second, it is becoming evident that the French revolts are very rapidly becoming more about French nationalism than taxes on gasoline. Anti-EU sentiment isn't new in France. It's been simmering for at least 10-15 years. But now we're seeing France become yet a new battlefield in the hardening the nationalist vs. globalist political realignment that I have been talking about for some time now. You really think the US has a stronger protest culture than France? Or are you just saying that it's a losing issue for Democrats to campaign on it? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 11 2018 13:44 IgnE wrote: You really think the US has a stronger protest culture than France? Or are you just saying that it's a losing issue for Democrats to campaign on it? The latter. The US has inadequate experience with the guillotine. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2018 07:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: The yellow vest movement generally seems to be more of an anti-economic elites movement than a response to the diesel tax specifically or opposition towards the EU. The fuel tax is one of the important focus points of the movement, this is true - but this is specifically because it's considered an anti-social tax. People are not opposed to taxing pollution as much as they are opposed to the poor and middle class being asked to take on most of this tax burden. One of the things I've seen with opposition to global warming legislation/alarmism/movement is that it manifests in anti-elite rhetoric. Look at the big players. A bunch of powerful politicians, influential people, and wealthy people meet in climate conferences to tell us that more sacrifices must be made for our own good. Well, we've seen fossil fuel-burning cars in the crossairs with increased public transit initiatives and plans. What if opposition to AGW initiatives gets lost in other populist anti-elite fervor because it simply fits? The elites are prescribing what others must do, trying to hide the costs from those that will eventually bear them, and generally expect to do just fine while others sacrifice? xDaunt and Drone? Also, nothing quite gives the right setting like a 2018 Global Climate Change Summit in San Francisco where global corporate CEOs, environmentalists, and elected politicians all fly in on their private jets for a three-day chat. Y'all actually feel and register the repulsion, while also perhaps accepting it as necessary, right? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22739 Posts
On December 11 2018 15:41 xDaunt wrote: Right, that's the point that I was making with my questions and the point that I have made previously. The globalists and the elite (ie the wealthy) are mostly the same, with few exceptions. These are people who personally benefit from the free movement of capital and labor across borders. Their international agendas have nothing to do with the common good of the nation. It's all about personal aggrandizement. Just follow the money. Pick whatever international issue that these people are championing (everything from "free trade" to climate change), and the extent to which they are financially conflicted becomes brutally honest once you understand where they're invested. Do you see how Trump isn't outside of that cult of personal aggrandizement+ Show Spoiler + (he lives in gold plated homes ) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On December 11 2018 15:41 xDaunt wrote: Right, that's the point that I was making with my questions and the point that I have made previously. The globalists and the elite (ie the wealthy) are mostly the same, with few exceptions. These are people who personally benefit from the free movement of capital and labor across borders. Their international agendas have nothing to do with the common good of the nation. It's all about personal aggrandizement. Just follow the money. Pick whatever international issue that these people are championing (everything from "free trade" to climate change), and the extent to which they are financially conflicted becomes brutally honest once you understand where they're invested. I find it interesting that you can continue to defend classical liberalism against marxism or anything leftist when the subject comes up, and yet speak against globalization in the way that you do. It is a logical and unavoidable consequence of this system that you were otherwise ready to defend: you get to delocalise and cut your costs on labor, you get to sell to a larger crowd, you even get to threaten to move to another country if the people of your country don't give you enough tax cuts... All of this is extremely profitable. Besides, it's not going to be possible to fight this trend without having some new regulations on the free market... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 11 2018 16:02 Nebuchad wrote: I find it interesting that you can continue to defend classical liberalism against marxism or anything leftist when the subject comes up, and yet speak against globalization in the way that you do. It is a logical and unavoidable consequence of this system that you were otherwise ready to defend: you get to delocalise and cut your costs on labor, you get to sell to a larger crowd, you even get to threaten to move to another country if the people of your country don't give you enough tax cuts... All of this is extremely profitable. Besides, it's not going to be possible to fight this trend without having some new regulations on the free market... I'm not against globalization per se. I simply recognize the reality that fostering a system that encourages capital investment in anti-Western, totalitarian nations like China is a really bad idea. Those countries should be made to liberalize first before they are built up with foreign wealth. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 11 2018 14:24 Danglars wrote: Let me take Drone's point a tiny bit further. One of the things I've seen with opposition to global warming legislation/alarmism/movement is that it manifests in anti-elite rhetoric. Look at the big players. A bunch of powerful politicians, influential people, and wealthy people meet in climate conferences to tell us that more sacrifices must be made for our own good. Well, we've seen fossil fuel-burning cars in the crossairs with increased public transit initiatives and plans. What if opposition to AGW initiatives gets lost in other populist anti-elite fervor because it simply fits? The elites are prescribing what others must do, trying to hide the costs from those that will eventually bear them, and generally expect to do just fine while others sacrifice? xDaunt and Drone? Also, nothing quite gives the right setting like a 2018 Global Climate Change Summit in San Francisco where global corporate CEOs, environmentalists, and elected politicians all fly in on their private jets for a three-day chat. Y'all actually feel and register the repulsion, while also perhaps accepting it as necessary, right? you do know how consumption taxes work right? the rich still fly on private planes. and what? three days isnt long enough to warrant a plane flight? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22739 Posts
On December 11 2018 23:40 xDaunt wrote: I'm not against globalization per se. I simply recognize the reality that fostering a system that encourages capital investment in anti-Western, totalitarian nations like China is a really bad idea. Those countries should be made to liberalize first before they are built up with foreign wealth. I don't understand the charge that China is totalitarian. I'd say China is more liberal than the US was in it's comparable stage of industrial development. If you wouldn't call the US totalitarian at any point in history I don't think you can sincerely argue that China is totalitarian now. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 11 2018 23:40 xDaunt wrote: I'm not against globalization per se. I simply recognize the reality that fostering a system that encourages capital investment in anti-Western, totalitarian nations like China is a really bad idea. Those countries should be made to liberalize first before they are built up with foreign wealth. How on earth is that supposed to work? The US couldn't even liberalise Iraq, a country it conquered in two days. How is it supposed to do that with one of the most powerful economies on earth with the second largest army on said planet? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 12 2018 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't understand the charge that China is totalitarian. I'd say China is more liberal than the US was in it's comparable stage of industrial development. If you wouldn't call the US totalitarian at any point in history I don't think you can sincerely argue that China is totalitarian now. have you read about the surveillance state in western china? if you really want to pursue this line of thought why dobt you tell us the period when the US was most totalitarian. civil war? any non-wartime period? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 12 2018 00:35 IgnE wrote: have you read about the surveillance state in western china? if you really want to pursue this line of thought why dobt you tell us the period when the US was most totalitarian. civil war? any non-wartime period? Let’s just set aside the Uighurs for a moment. The Chinese outlawed Winnie the Pooh because Xi was embarrassed by all of the comments that he looks like Pooh. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22739 Posts
On December 12 2018 00:35 IgnE wrote: have you read about the surveillance state in western china? if you really want to pursue this line of thought why dobt you tell us the period when the US was most totalitarian. civil war? any non-wartime period? Yes? I suppose it depends on your perspective. As a Black person I don't think anyone's going to argue it wasn't* absolutely totalitarian up through the civil war and from there we have the systematic destruction of Black liberation groups and leaders like MLK, Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, so I'd say we're pretty fair in saying from my perspective and people that look like me the US has been worse than China is now at least through the 60's. It gets a bit more nuanced after that so I imagine there'd be more conflicting interpretations. On December 12 2018 00:57 xDaunt wrote: Let’s just set aside the Uighurs for a moment. The Chinese outlawed Winnie the Pooh because Xi was embarrassed by all of the comments that he looks like Pooh. lol they didn't "outlaw Winnie the Pooh". I swear people just gobble this propaganda up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2018 23:51 IgnE wrote: you do know how consumption taxes work right? the rich still fly on private planes. and what? three days isnt long enough to warrant a plane flight? You know that Drone contrasted in part, and agreed in part about anti-elite protests and anti-climate change taxes for the focus of the protest? I went and gave my opinion that they’re on the same tree and overlap and would naturally convolute. If there’s a water shortage and some rich guys’ watering his fifty acres just the same, you don’t talk about the mechanism of quotas and fees. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 12 2018 01:00 Danglars wrote: You know that Drone contrasted in part, and agreed in part about anti-elite protests and anti-climate change taxes for the focus of the protest? I went and gave my opinion that they’re on the same tree and overlap and would naturally convolute. If there’s a water shortage and some rich guys’ watering his fifty acres just the same, you don’t talk about the mechanism of quotas and fees. wow a conservative lecturing me about why we cant trust the market to handle watering shortages or carbon output. theres obviously nothing hypocritical about market loving rich people flying private planes while instituting a market mechanism to address the destruction of the commons (ie the atmosphere). i guess trump really has changed the party. now its pure ressentiment of the elites justifying an abandonment of core market principles. its almost like your problem with the rich is that they are rich | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2018 01:09 IgnE wrote: wow a conservative lecturing me about why we cant trust the market to handle watering shortages or carbon output. theres obviously nothing hypocritical about market loving rich people flying private planes while instituting a market mechanism to address the destruction of the commons (ie the atmosphere). i guess trump really has changed the party. now its pure ressentiment of the elites justifying an abandonment of core market principles. its almost like your problem with the rich is that they are rich Haha you’re still missing the point. Where did I say the market can’t handle it? Where did I say market loving rich people flying, if we assume they’re indeed working hard and seriously to fix the problem, is purely hypocritical. I just have a better idea of why protests of one thing overlap into other areas and manifest in no single-issue movement. Do you think a protestor sets down a paper to write down exactly why these fuel taxes will save him from climate destruction in the long term before deciding not to throw on his gilet jaune? I say it doesn’t come down to rational examination of global carbon emissions, but rather who’s telling him to make sacrifices for the greater good, and how they’re going to fare. I really am stumped at why you bring conservatism and markets into an analysis of climate tax protest vs elite protest. Do you really think the only true conservative comment is “I can’t possibly imagine why they’re protesting, because markets and consumption taxes are proper, so it can’t be that!!” You’re better than this. Tell me again that since I’m a conservative, I have to think protests only flow from rational analysis of environmental, economic, and long-term trade offs. You’re better than this. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
ah right silly me for thinking that you sympathize with any of this rhetoric. i can see now you were just channeling hatred of rich people for diagnostic reasons | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On December 11 2018 23:40 xDaunt wrote: I'm not against globalization per se. I simply recognize the reality that fostering a system that encourages capital investment in anti-Western, totalitarian nations like China is a really bad idea. Those countries should be made to liberalize first before they are built up with foreign wealth. But the way it's being done is the most profitable for the people doing it, so of course that's what's happening. It's not the best for the countries on the receiving end, I agree, but that's freedom of the market for you... It's not really that we want to tie these things together, Danglars, these things are naturally tied together because what's really happening now is that most politicians are trying to gesture toward climate change in a way that is as unimpactful as possible and that changes the capitalist system as little as possible, because they are getting pressured by the capitalist class to maintain their privilege. That's why we get fuel taxes and shit like that, cause we supposedly don't have power, so we supposedly can't fight back against the hypocrisy of having us receive the brunt of the cost for the pollution they have been responsible for. Considering that conservatism generally supports the capitalist class in their quest to remain as powerful and deregulated as possible, it takes some pretty impressive work to frame this in a way that makes the classical liberals look good. xDaunt tried it a little bit earlier, painting the "leftist elites" (lol) as alarmists on climate change - it was a nice effort, I'll give him that, but we know what's really going on, we know where the elites are voting and we know why. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2018 02:08 IgnE wrote: “A bunch of powerful politicians, influential people, and wealthy people meet in climate conferences to tell us that more sacrifices must be made for our own good. Well, we've seen fossil fuel-burning cars in the crossairs with increased public transit initiatives and plans. What if opposition to AGW initiatives gets lost in other populist anti-elite fervor because it simply fits? The elites are prescribing what others must do, trying to hide the costs from those that will eventually bear them, and generally expect to do just fine while others sacrifice?” ah right silly me for thinking that you sympathize with any of this rhetoric. i can see now you were just channeling hatred of rich people for diagnostic reasons You really thought I sympathize with outright hatred of economic elites? I'm sympathetic to why protesters connect the AGW measures to anti-elite sentiment generally. Maybe that connection drives some future sober rhetoric on cost and how to present it all to the public. | ||
| ||
