|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 28 2020 15:50 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 14:56 Starlightsun wrote:Has anyone seen anything to cooberate that some of the federal troops deployed on protestors are mercenaries from Blackwater legacy companies? That group was run by Betsy Devos's brother until convicted of war crimes in Iraq. https://medium.com/@wkc6428/the-lead-federal-agency-responding-to-protesters-in-portland-employs-thousands-of-private-db137349f8b0What has not been reported widely in the media, however, is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unit that is coordinating the “crowd control” effort — an agency called the Federal Protective Service (FPS) — is composed largely of contract security personnel. Those contractors are being furnished to FPS by major private-sector security companies like Blackwater corporate descendant Triple Canopy as well as dozens of other private security firms.
If true, that's some next level dystopian cyberpunk shit right there.
It really would be, but not sure if medium is the most reliable news source. Erik Prince is really an evil man.
|
United States43263 Posts
On July 29 2020 02:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 02:03 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. Socialists at least place value on the commons and rightly place ownership of it with the people as a whole. If I declare that fish stocks are a free for all and that everyone is entitled to take as much as they wish then, as a capitalist, I should rationally take all that I can because I know that you, as another capitalist, plan to do the same. I should not steward the resource because that will benefit you at my cost, it would be irrational to do so, especially given you’re likely to overfish it anyway despite my efforts. And if you attempt to steward it then I should still overfish it because a third capitalist probably intends to do that too so I should get there before he does. The first step to limiting this behaviour is recognizing that it is a collectively owned resource that the people at large have rights to. All subsequent steps depend upon that, you cannot address the excesses of capitalism without first socializing the commons. What you choose to subsequently do may not be environmentally friendly, it may ultimately be worth destroying a river ecosystem to make a hydroelectric dam, but at least the stakeholders in the river are the same as in the dam. If the people choose to forfeit the value of a natural resource for something of greater value to them then so be it. But only through collective ownership can the value of a natural resource be established and only after establishing its value can that value be protected. I understand the philosophy however that is not how it actually ends up working in any TM socialist country we have seen so far. The leaders all claim to be placing value on the commons, but none deliver. We have actually seen at least as bad hording by those in power, if not worse because in a TM socialist country only the ruling party members may run meaning there is no way to hold those who are corrupt to account. On top of that anyone who opposes them or their hording will be either shipped off to jail, "re-education camp", or just murdered. If it all worked as it was philosophized you would have a point, but it never has. Democratic socialism, or moving left within liberal democracy have shown to be a positive for the environment. There is also no guarantee that it will stay a left right issue. Christians who are way more often "right" leaning are more and more valuing the environment. It is clearly not their number one issue now but it could be in the future. The real life data, and experience is that once you move to TM socialism and democracy disappears it is worse for the environment, worse for the vast majority of people, extremely corrupt, and neither equitable or equal. If you are looking to push things left toward social democracy, excellent me too. Democracy and government regulating greed has worked out pretty well. If you are looking at a revolution for TM socialism, you can put me in the hell no camp as that has always worked out awful for everyone but the few in power.
This is a ridiculous straw man that attempts to argue that giving people ownership of their own air, fisheries, and lakes inevitably leads to the gulag. It’s absurd and I won’t dignify it with a response beyond saying that you wasted your time writing it and forced everyone else here to waste their time here by reading it. The excesses of Joseph Stalin are not a credible argument against the Clean Water Act.
|
I'm sure there's a middle ground between absolute capitalism and absolute socialism. As per Adam Smith, the state should regulate the capitalism in a way that benefits the common people.
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 02:28 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. My point is that saving the environment goes beyond any -ism, and at its core requires giving a shit about whether we can continue to live here. So when Wegandi drops in, acts like the science agrees with him while also refusing to cite any, and says "lol don't worry bro, we've got capitalism" is just as much a theology as he's trying to say we are for taking our and the planet's future seriously. There's a reason engineers make conservative assumptions when they design anything that handles human life. It's so that when they're wrong, people still live because they erred on the side of caution when they built that bridge everyone needs, or that car you drive every day, or that rocket that got us to the moon. Suddenly when it comes to our ecosystem though, that's just a big joke to people, and it's totally awesome if we're wrong in the end and billions die. I completely agree with this. It is equally dumb to think that socialism or capitalism is going to "fix" things. Greed exists in both systems as shown by what situation we are in now and how everyone, and every system needs to do a lot better.
the difference is that Greed in socialism is called corruption, whereas in capitalism it is the end goal, and a feature rather than a bug of the system.
And the real reason engineers make conservative assumptions is because they wont get hired + they will get sued, the human life portion is an ethical question and has nothing to do with actual engineering decisions. If the protection of human life was the primary goal we would all be driving around in cars with bulletproof glass, steel reinforced roll cages etc..but they have to be lighter, cheaper, faster, sexier. and safety takes a back seat to all of those things. Engineers have had to innovate around the greed of the capitalist class to find a place where human life can be protected.
You see this struggle in building codes today when it comes to retroactively applying sprinkler requirements to existing buildings. Does capitalism seek to protect the human life inside or does it force the landlord to fight against the requirement because it is expensive to perform the retrofit? does an engineer now need to come up with a new system that does it cheaper so that people can be safe at a cost that the capitalist will accept?
TLDR:
Engineers are basically the enablers of capitalism. lol
|
United States43263 Posts
On July 29 2020 03:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 03:34 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 02:38 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:03 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. Socialists at least place value on the commons and rightly place ownership of it with the people as a whole. If I declare that fish stocks are a free for all and that everyone is entitled to take as much as they wish then, as a capitalist, I should rationally take all that I can because I know that you, as another capitalist, plan to do the same. I should not steward the resource because that will benefit you at my cost, it would be irrational to do so, especially given you’re likely to overfish it anyway despite my efforts. And if you attempt to steward it then I should still overfish it because a third capitalist probably intends to do that too so I should get there before he does. The first step to limiting this behaviour is recognizing that it is a collectively owned resource that the people at large have rights to. All subsequent steps depend upon that, you cannot address the excesses of capitalism without first socializing the commons. What you choose to subsequently do may not be environmentally friendly, it may ultimately be worth destroying a river ecosystem to make a hydroelectric dam, but at least the stakeholders in the river are the same as in the dam. If the people choose to forfeit the value of a natural resource for something of greater value to them then so be it. But only through collective ownership can the value of a natural resource be established and only after establishing its value can that value be protected. I understand the philosophy however that is not how it actually ends up working in any TM socialist country we have seen so far. The leaders all claim to be placing value on the commons, but none deliver. We have actually seen at least as bad hording by those in power, if not worse because in a TM socialist country only the ruling party members may run meaning there is no way to hold those who are corrupt to account. On top of that anyone who opposes them or their hording will be either shipped off to jail, "re-education camp", or just murdered. If it all worked as it was philosophized you would have a point, but it never has. Democratic socialism, or moving left within liberal democracy have shown to be a positive for the environment. There is also no guarantee that it will stay a left right issue. Christians who are way more often "right" leaning are more and more valuing the environment. It is clearly not their number one issue now but it could be in the future. The real life data, and experience is that once you move to TM socialism and democracy disappears it is worse for the environment, worse for the vast majority of people, extremely corrupt, and neither equitable or equal. If you are looking to push things left toward social democracy, excellent me too. Democracy and government regulating greed has worked out pretty well. If you are looking at a revolution for TM socialism, you can put me in the hell no camp as that has always worked out awful for everyone but the few in power. This is a ridiculous straw man that attempts to argue that giving people ownership of their own air, fisheries, and lakes inevitably leads to the gulag. It’s absurd and I won’t dignify it with a response beyond saying that you wasted your time writing it and forced everyone else here to waste their time here by reading it. The excesses of Joseph Stalin are not a credible argument against the Clean Water Act. No what is ridiculous is pretending that LM socialism ACTUALLY gave ownership to people and didn't just further consolidate power at the top. The evidence is history. Humanity has yet to find a way to share ownership on the large scale. I've got to say you calling what is actually happening and has happened a straw man is ridiculous even for you!
I’m not arguing for the gulag, I’m arguing for the Clean Water Act. You’re the one insisting they’re one and the same because “history”. You can’t just imagine other people’s arguments for them, you need to take the time to read them before responding.
|
On July 29 2020 03:45 Erasme wrote:
I'm sure there's a middle ground between absolute capitalism and absolute socialism. As per Adam Smith, the state should regulate the capitalism in a way that benefits the common people.
A fun game to play is to toss Adam Smith quotes out when talking with conservatives and watch their reaction. They tend to react as though you’ve just quoted Marx :D
|
Don't they just blurt out "invisible hand of the market!!!!!"
|
On July 29 2020 03:52 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:28 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. My point is that saving the environment goes beyond any -ism, and at its core requires giving a shit about whether we can continue to live here. So when Wegandi drops in, acts like the science agrees with him while also refusing to cite any, and says "lol don't worry bro, we've got capitalism" is just as much a theology as he's trying to say we are for taking our and the planet's future seriously. There's a reason engineers make conservative assumptions when they design anything that handles human life. It's so that when they're wrong, people still live because they erred on the side of caution when they built that bridge everyone needs, or that car you drive every day, or that rocket that got us to the moon. Suddenly when it comes to our ecosystem though, that's just a big joke to people, and it's totally awesome if we're wrong in the end and billions die. I completely agree with this. It is equally dumb to think that socialism or capitalism is going to "fix" things. Greed exists in both systems as shown by what situation we are in now and how everyone, and every system needs to do a lot better. the difference is that Greed in socialism is called corruption, whereas in capitalism it is the end goal, and a feature rather than a bug of the system. And the real reason engineers make conservative assumptions is because they wont get hired + they will get sued, the human life portion is an ethical question and has nothing to do with actual engineering decisions. If the protection of human life was the primary goal we would all be driving around in cars with bulletproof glass, steel reinforced roll cages etc..but they have to be lighter, cheaper, faster, sexier. and safety takes a back seat to all of those things. Engineers have had to innovate around the greed of the capitalist class to find a place where human life can be protected. You see this struggle in building codes today when it comes to retroactively applying sprinkler requirements to existing buildings. Does capitalism seek to protect the human life inside or does it force the landlord to fight against the requirement because it is expensive to perform the retrofit? does an engineer now need to come up with a new system that does it cheaper so that people can be safe at a cost that the capitalist will accept? TLDR: Engineers are basically the enablers of capitalism. lol
You're literally describing a dynamic where engineers have to constantly fight with capitalistic influences to get anything done. That's the opposite of what you were trying to say.
To illustrate further because I don't want to use too many posts on what is essentially an aside: Boeing is my case in point. Following Trump's election and the roll-back of all kinds of corporate regulations, Boeing basically obtained the ability to regulate themselves, because it was in everyone's interest at the corporate capitalist table to make that arrangement. The first thing they shat out since was the 737 Max, a plane where they changed an existing design on a fundamental level and made it too heavy to fly normally, and gave it half-assed software to try to correct it in-flight. All so they could ship it sooner and get more of that juicy money. I shouldn't have to point out how that all worked out. The judgement of every engineer at the firm who knew better was glossed over because the executives wanted to ship a little earlier.
|
I'm sure it's entirely socialists in Venezuala using ALL of the oil that they get from the ground.
|
On July 29 2020 04:00 Erasme wrote:
Don't they just blurt out "invisible hand of the market!!!!!"
That happens sometimes, but they never bring up the text that surrounds that phrase!
|
|
|
United States43263 Posts
On July 29 2020 04:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 03:58 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 03:49 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 03:34 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 02:38 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:03 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. Socialists at least place value on the commons and rightly place ownership of it with the people as a whole. If I declare that fish stocks are a free for all and that everyone is entitled to take as much as they wish then, as a capitalist, I should rationally take all that I can because I know that you, as another capitalist, plan to do the same. I should not steward the resource because that will benefit you at my cost, it would be irrational to do so, especially given you’re likely to overfish it anyway despite my efforts. And if you attempt to steward it then I should still overfish it because a third capitalist probably intends to do that too so I should get there before he does. The first step to limiting this behaviour is recognizing that it is a collectively owned resource that the people at large have rights to. All subsequent steps depend upon that, you cannot address the excesses of capitalism without first socializing the commons. What you choose to subsequently do may not be environmentally friendly, it may ultimately be worth destroying a river ecosystem to make a hydroelectric dam, but at least the stakeholders in the river are the same as in the dam. If the people choose to forfeit the value of a natural resource for something of greater value to them then so be it. But only through collective ownership can the value of a natural resource be established and only after establishing its value can that value be protected. I understand the philosophy however that is not how it actually ends up working in any TM socialist country we have seen so far. The leaders all claim to be placing value on the commons, but none deliver. We have actually seen at least as bad hording by those in power, if not worse because in a TM socialist country only the ruling party members may run meaning there is no way to hold those who are corrupt to account. On top of that anyone who opposes them or their hording will be either shipped off to jail, "re-education camp", or just murdered. If it all worked as it was philosophized you would have a point, but it never has. Democratic socialism, or moving left within liberal democracy have shown to be a positive for the environment. There is also no guarantee that it will stay a left right issue. Christians who are way more often "right" leaning are more and more valuing the environment. It is clearly not their number one issue now but it could be in the future. The real life data, and experience is that once you move to TM socialism and democracy disappears it is worse for the environment, worse for the vast majority of people, extremely corrupt, and neither equitable or equal. If you are looking to push things left toward social democracy, excellent me too. Democracy and government regulating greed has worked out pretty well. If you are looking at a revolution for TM socialism, you can put me in the hell no camp as that has always worked out awful for everyone but the few in power. This is a ridiculous straw man that attempts to argue that giving people ownership of their own air, fisheries, and lakes inevitably leads to the gulag. It’s absurd and I won’t dignify it with a response beyond saying that you wasted your time writing it and forced everyone else here to waste their time here by reading it. The excesses of Joseph Stalin are not a credible argument against the Clean Water Act. No what is ridiculous is pretending that LM socialism ACTUALLY gave ownership to people and didn't just further consolidate power at the top. The evidence is history. Humanity has yet to find a way to share ownership on the large scale. I've got to say you calling what is actually happening and has happened a straw man is ridiculous even for you! I’m not arguing for the gulag, I’m arguing for the Clean Water Act. You’re the one insisting they’re one and the same because “history”. You can’t just imagine other people’s arguments for them, you need to take the time to read them before responding. Giving ownership to the people has never happened. What you are describing as the gulag has actually happened every time. Whether it is USSR, entire eastern block, Venezuela, Cuba and so on. The reason for this is because LM socialism does not actually work as intended one people are in power. If I was wrong you would point out where it actually worked and this would be done, but you can not because it has not. As Trainrunnef points out both have the issue of greed, in both socialist democracies and Liberal democracies we attempt to deal with this issue through regulation, taxes, social programs and so on. Some countries and governments clearly do a much better job than others. With LM socialism you still have greed, except no oversight to curtail it so it runs a muck. You could call it corruption, but since those who make and enforce the rules it is not exactly corruption as it really is just a function of how it works in practice. If you could figure out the right separation of power and checks and balances it would probably be a wonderful system. As it stands right now and as it is practiced throughout the world it is an awful system. You might as well be arguing for an AI overlord who makes all the best decisions for everyone. It also does not exist, and it also theoretically would work great.
You’re literally the only one talking about LM socialism here. God you must be a fucking nightmare to spend any time with. Is there any conceivable statement anyone could make that wouldn’t result in you responding with something related to Stalin? If so please let me know what it is so I can say it to make you shut the fuck up about Stalin. Fucking go get a room with Lenin’s embalmed body already you obsessed fucking weirdo.
This shit is why I don’t read this topic anymore. I can’t even say something as simple as that the tragedy of the commons exists without being accused of complicity with the gulag.
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 03:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 29 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:28 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. My point is that saving the environment goes beyond any -ism, and at its core requires giving a shit about whether we can continue to live here. So when Wegandi drops in, acts like the science agrees with him while also refusing to cite any, and says "lol don't worry bro, we've got capitalism" is just as much a theology as he's trying to say we are for taking our and the planet's future seriously. There's a reason engineers make conservative assumptions when they design anything that handles human life. It's so that when they're wrong, people still live because they erred on the side of caution when they built that bridge everyone needs, or that car you drive every day, or that rocket that got us to the moon. Suddenly when it comes to our ecosystem though, that's just a big joke to people, and it's totally awesome if we're wrong in the end and billions die. I completely agree with this. It is equally dumb to think that socialism or capitalism is going to "fix" things. Greed exists in both systems as shown by what situation we are in now and how everyone, and every system needs to do a lot better. the difference is that Greed in socialism is called corruption, whereas in capitalism it is the end goal, and a feature rather than a bug of the system. And the real reason engineers make conservative assumptions is because they wont get hired + they will get sued, the human life portion is an ethical question and has nothing to do with actual engineering decisions. If the protection of human life was the primary goal we would all be driving around in cars with bulletproof glass, steel reinforced roll cages etc..but they have to be lighter, cheaper, faster, sexier. and safety takes a back seat to all of those things. Engineers have had to innovate around the greed of the capitalist class to find a place where human life can be protected. You see this struggle in building codes today when it comes to retroactively applying sprinkler requirements to existing buildings. Does capitalism seek to protect the human life inside or does it force the landlord to fight against the requirement because it is expensive to perform the retrofit? does an engineer now need to come up with a new system that does it cheaper so that people can be safe at a cost that the capitalist will accept? TLDR: Engineers are basically the enablers of capitalism. lol You're literally describing a dynamic where engineers have to constantly fight with capitalistic influences to get anything done. That's the opposite of what you were trying to say. To illustrate further because I don't want to use too many posts on what is essentially an aside: Boeing is my case in point. Following Trump's election and the roll-back of all kinds of corporate regulations, Boeing basically obtained the ability to regulate themselves, because it was in everyone's interest at the corporate capitalist table to make that arrangement. The first thing they shat out since was the 737 Max, a plane where they changed an existing design on a fundamental level and made it too heavy to fly normally, and gave it half-assed software to try to correct it in-flight. All so they could ship it sooner and get more of that juicy money. I shouldn't have to point out how that all worked out. The judgement of every engineer at the firm who knew better was glossed over because the executives wanted to ship a little earlier.
I meant that engineers begrudgingly enable capitalism by being forced to and often coming up with solutions to problems presented by greed. Sometimes unsuccessfully like your Boeing example. but agreed no need to beat a dead horse.
|
On July 29 2020 04:37 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 03:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 29 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:28 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. My point is that saving the environment goes beyond any -ism, and at its core requires giving a shit about whether we can continue to live here. So when Wegandi drops in, acts like the science agrees with him while also refusing to cite any, and says "lol don't worry bro, we've got capitalism" is just as much a theology as he's trying to say we are for taking our and the planet's future seriously. There's a reason engineers make conservative assumptions when they design anything that handles human life. It's so that when they're wrong, people still live because they erred on the side of caution when they built that bridge everyone needs, or that car you drive every day, or that rocket that got us to the moon. Suddenly when it comes to our ecosystem though, that's just a big joke to people, and it's totally awesome if we're wrong in the end and billions die. I completely agree with this. It is equally dumb to think that socialism or capitalism is going to "fix" things. Greed exists in both systems as shown by what situation we are in now and how everyone, and every system needs to do a lot better. the difference is that Greed in socialism is called corruption, whereas in capitalism it is the end goal, and a feature rather than a bug of the system. And the real reason engineers make conservative assumptions is because they wont get hired + they will get sued, the human life portion is an ethical question and has nothing to do with actual engineering decisions. If the protection of human life was the primary goal we would all be driving around in cars with bulletproof glass, steel reinforced roll cages etc..but they have to be lighter, cheaper, faster, sexier. and safety takes a back seat to all of those things. Engineers have had to innovate around the greed of the capitalist class to find a place where human life can be protected. You see this struggle in building codes today when it comes to retroactively applying sprinkler requirements to existing buildings. Does capitalism seek to protect the human life inside or does it force the landlord to fight against the requirement because it is expensive to perform the retrofit? does an engineer now need to come up with a new system that does it cheaper so that people can be safe at a cost that the capitalist will accept? TLDR: Engineers are basically the enablers of capitalism. lol You're literally describing a dynamic where engineers have to constantly fight with capitalistic influences to get anything done. That's the opposite of what you were trying to say. To illustrate further because I don't want to use too many posts on what is essentially an aside: Boeing is my case in point. Following Trump's election and the roll-back of all kinds of corporate regulations, Boeing basically obtained the ability to regulate themselves, because it was in everyone's interest at the corporate capitalist table to make that arrangement. The first thing they shat out since was the 737 Max, a plane where they changed an existing design on a fundamental level and made it too heavy to fly normally, and gave it half-assed software to try to correct it in-flight. All so they could ship it sooner and get more of that juicy money. I shouldn't have to point out how that all worked out. The judgement of every engineer at the firm who knew better was glossed over because the executives wanted to ship a little earlier. I meant that engineers begrudgingly enable capitalism by being forced to and often coming up with solutions to problems presented by greed. Sometimes unsuccessfully like your Boeing example. but agreed no need to beat a dead horse.
I get what you're saying now. I took your previous post to mean that they were active and willing enablers of capitalism, rather than neutral players in a game where capitalism sets conflicting rules. I think you also point out an important distinction re: feature versus bug. If corruption and greed at the top is what creates so much conflict in genuine problem-solving, does it make more sense to go with unregulated capitalism, where said greed is literally the only logical motivator? Or do you find a more regulated system with more social components that mitigates this conflict of interest?
|
|
|
On July 29 2020 04:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 04:37 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 29 2020 04:03 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 03:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On July 29 2020 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On July 29 2020 02:28 NewSunshine wrote:On July 29 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest problem with blaming capitalism for the environmental problems is socialists are doing just as shitty a job. The issue is a mix of consumerism, throw away culture, valuing short term gains over sustainability. My point is that saving the environment goes beyond any -ism, and at its core requires giving a shit about whether we can continue to live here. So when Wegandi drops in, acts like the science agrees with him while also refusing to cite any, and says "lol don't worry bro, we've got capitalism" is just as much a theology as he's trying to say we are for taking our and the planet's future seriously. There's a reason engineers make conservative assumptions when they design anything that handles human life. It's so that when they're wrong, people still live because they erred on the side of caution when they built that bridge everyone needs, or that car you drive every day, or that rocket that got us to the moon. Suddenly when it comes to our ecosystem though, that's just a big joke to people, and it's totally awesome if we're wrong in the end and billions die. I completely agree with this. It is equally dumb to think that socialism or capitalism is going to "fix" things. Greed exists in both systems as shown by what situation we are in now and how everyone, and every system needs to do a lot better. the difference is that Greed in socialism is called corruption, whereas in capitalism it is the end goal, and a feature rather than a bug of the system. And the real reason engineers make conservative assumptions is because they wont get hired + they will get sued, the human life portion is an ethical question and has nothing to do with actual engineering decisions. If the protection of human life was the primary goal we would all be driving around in cars with bulletproof glass, steel reinforced roll cages etc..but they have to be lighter, cheaper, faster, sexier. and safety takes a back seat to all of those things. Engineers have had to innovate around the greed of the capitalist class to find a place where human life can be protected. You see this struggle in building codes today when it comes to retroactively applying sprinkler requirements to existing buildings. Does capitalism seek to protect the human life inside or does it force the landlord to fight against the requirement because it is expensive to perform the retrofit? does an engineer now need to come up with a new system that does it cheaper so that people can be safe at a cost that the capitalist will accept? TLDR: Engineers are basically the enablers of capitalism. lol You're literally describing a dynamic where engineers have to constantly fight with capitalistic influences to get anything done. That's the opposite of what you were trying to say. To illustrate further because I don't want to use too many posts on what is essentially an aside: Boeing is my case in point. Following Trump's election and the roll-back of all kinds of corporate regulations, Boeing basically obtained the ability to regulate themselves, because it was in everyone's interest at the corporate capitalist table to make that arrangement. The first thing they shat out since was the 737 Max, a plane where they changed an existing design on a fundamental level and made it too heavy to fly normally, and gave it half-assed software to try to correct it in-flight. All so they could ship it sooner and get more of that juicy money. I shouldn't have to point out how that all worked out. The judgement of every engineer at the firm who knew better was glossed over because the executives wanted to ship a little earlier. I meant that engineers begrudgingly enable capitalism by being forced to and often coming up with solutions to problems presented by greed. Sometimes unsuccessfully like your Boeing example. but agreed no need to beat a dead horse. I get what you're saying now. I took your previous post to mean that they were active and willing enablers of capitalism, rather than neutral players in a game where capitalism sets conflicting rules. I think you also point out an important distinction re: feature versus bug. If corruption and greed at the top is what creates so much conflict in genuine problem-solving, does it make more sense to go with unregulated capitalism, where said greed is literally the only logical motivator? Or do you find a more regulated system with more social components that mitigates this conflict of interest?
Despite what libertarians may say, unregulated capitalism will likely result in a race to the bottom where innovation is stagnated and cartels make the rules in their own favor. Heavily regulated capitalism is much better at steering that conflict between capitalism and ethical operation and making sure the system is always focusing on preservation of life as a priority in all its different shapes and forms.
|
United States43263 Posts
On July 29 2020 05:04 JimmiC wrote:And I was not the one that brought up Stalin and Gulag's that was Kwark. Though they are a important part of the history of LM socialism since many consider Stalin the father of that ideology. Show nested quote +On July 29 2020 04:11 JimmiC wrote:
On top of that anyone who opposes them or their hording will be either shipped off to jail, "re-education camp", or just murdered.
Also you responded to me with an argument against the gulag, not GH. I talked about socializing ocean fish stocks and you brought up re-education camps.
At least I have an answer to my question though, there literally is no way to make you shut up about Stalin. The fact that you claim to be agreeing with my point (communal management of collective resources in a social democracy) doesn’t in any way impact your need to let everyone know you’re holding them accountable for the purges.
|
On July 28 2020 18:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 17:24 Uldridge wrote:
We're only this good because we don't need to avert disasters. When you have literal millions of people who will need to relocate because they can't provide the infrastructure to hold back rising sea levels, you put enormous strains on the supply chain.
Europe could barely handle the surge of migrants, logistically and politically. I don't feel like living in a warzone because people got displaced because of something we created and could possibly prevent.
Sure, we're adaptable, but we're fighting a losing battle at the moment. Crop innovation and infrastructural reinforcement can't keep up. If we need 20 years to release a heat/drought resistant crop, we're screwed.
Also, while food securty is a thing, quality food is the real indicator here.
Stuffing your face with pop tarts and having 2/3 of your populace be obese, food security isn't really indicative now, is it? You might call it a predatory food chain at best, but to say food security is at an all time high becuse we have x million of people every successive year who are non-starving anymore, is simply looking at things at face value.
Also, while we're in GOOD times relative to the past, we could be in BETTER times because of good policies and not because of what we have now. 1) Data and studies suggest that harvest yields will be better with rising global temperatures (the fact that NOW with climate change having been a thing for more than 3 decades now, harvest yields are fantastic is ignored...). With rising sea levels and changing weather patterns arable lands will shift, but the outcome will fall somewhere between a wash to a net increase.
Apologies in advance for the following shitpost, I just can't help myself sometimes:
https://streamable.com/kpnp3q
Do note I used a private tab as to avoid tainting the results
P.S.: it won't make sense without making it fullscreen from the start
|
|
|
|
|
|
50958
5521
491
242
36
EPT
