Belo Monte Dam approved :(

[Tsyal Makto]

But when do we stop sacrificing the few remaining pristine places of Earth on the altar of development? How many more traditional peoples will be forced to give up their traditional lifestyles and lands? The dominant culture must always expand to survive. More people, more extraction, more production, the culture always needs more. The "tomorrow" you dream of will never come. The world needs to make a stand now, either with new lifestyles, new means of production, new outlooks, or preferably all of them. We can't just keep saying "well, maybe next time," because eventually there won't be anything left for there to be a next time. THAT is what Avatar was about. NOT replacing lightbulbs, NOT buying a Prius, NOT buying the sustainably harvested coffe, all that does is try to add a green spin to a culture that is unsustainable. Avatar was about having a totally new outlook on nature, the need for not just sustainability, but harmony, and that involves fundamental changes to how we live, and how we view nature.

Like I also brought up before, what about the uncontacted peoples of the Amazon? Do you want to force modern living on them?

Oh, and IMO Europe is closest to the mark. Corporations are eating my country alive. And we have a political party that openly denies scientific fact.

Laissez faire capitalism or "neoliberal" politics are bound to lead to a strongly hierarchical and stratified society that very much has a defined rulership and governance, just not one elected by the people but instead elected by the shareholders and not bound to human rights and a constitution but to the rules of the economy.

That's the funny thing, isn't it? In theory, a marketplace with little intervention should seem compatible with libertarianism as it was originally meant, but in reality it underminds original libertarianism, because strong-armed fat cats and corporations often make decisions that limits the freedoms of workers. Again, think of the Guilded Age. The "captains of industry" lived pretty damn free, and well, but their workers didn't. In other words, "new boss, same as the old boss."

There definitely is a distinction between neglect and "dog-eat-dog" society and Anarchy. Anarchy means without rulers - Nation states are one form of rulership, but corporate rule is also a form of that - as is monarchy or dictatorship. The essence of what truely is meant by Anarchy in the positive sense is a situation that has no rulers. Such a situation does NOT come from a laissez faire mentality or neglect or abolishment of all rules. The idea is to get rid of rulers, not to get rid of rules, but to let the people make their own rules.

Agreed. The problem is that people like politicians and Ayn Rand are muddying the waters, and are redefining both libertarianism and anarchy. They are turning libertarianism into a form of, dog-eat-dog quasi-anarchy under the under the guise of laissez faire economics/neoliberalism (which, in reality, results in something like "Lord of the Flies," again, Guilded Age), and are redefining anarchy as the policy of neglect, of a world without rules (which the dominant culture has been doing for a while, which is why they've pretty much become interchangable in the US, as our economic policy slowly becomes one without rules). Both anarchy and libertarianism in their original forms (as envisioned by people like Chomsky or Orwell, or hell, even Marx to a degree) are good, but the dominant culture has turned them both on their heads into destructive philosophies.