Conservative/Libertarian Environmentalist Unite!!!

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Spock

Your title is extremely misleading, it insinuates that only the right can be environmentalists

I don't see that in it myself. 'Conservative/libertarian environmentalists' does not mean 'all environmentalists are conservative/libertarian', it means 'some conservatives/libertarians are also environmentalists'.

Poor example. When individuals work togethor to make something get done, like the November revolution in 1917 Russia, that makes it a collective movement.

And look at the result - the murders, the work camps, the eventual economic collapse and total failure...

Oh, but why would they do that if they're risking revolution?

Because governments get complacent, and start taking liberties. When that happens, eventually you end up with them kicked out, either democratically, or by a revolution.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Spock

Capitalism is blind and retarded.

Woah woah woah, back up the paddywagon.

"Blind and retarded"? It's worked for America for the past 234 years... Worked the same for the U.K. as well (although the government has slightly more control there). We may not be doing too well these days, but capitalism has nothing to do with any recession that's going on.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

No I did not, I made clear I was talking about the Radical left and not the left in general so sorry in this case you are wrong, try again.

Actually no. You've failed to adress my concern. I stated that environmentalism should not be stickied to either the right or the left. You have done this, clearly a ploy on your part to associate people like me, leftists, with environmental destruction, as only Libertarians can be environmentalists, which is wrong. Therefore you would gain support. While inedvertantly painting the left in bad light.

Advice for everyone: PunkMaister is clearly on a crusade against me and the left of politics. Ignore this and focus on the real issues.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Woah woah woah, back up the paddywagon.

"Blind and retarded"? It's worked for America for the past 234 years... Worked the same for the U.K. as well (although the government has slightly more control there). We may not be doing too well these days, but capitalism has nothing to do with any recession that's going on.

Exactly, and I'm not denying the history, I am merely making a logical judgement on how capitalism will react to the coming problems within 50-100 years. Simply, blind and retarded.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I don't see that in it myself. 'Conservative/libertarian environmentalists' does not mean 'all environmentalists are conservative/libertarian', it means 'some conservatives/libertarians are also environmentalists'.

No.... it doesn't. It doesn't allow room for 'some'. It insinuates that all conservative/libertarians are environmentalists, then it is only natural that the opposite, the socialists are not environmentalists, which is untrue. The vast majority of people will start to associate the right with environmentalism. Therefore bringing environmentalists over to the right bolstering their numbers.

Originally Posted by Human No More

And look at the result - the murders, the work camps, the eventual economic collapse and total failure...

That was not the issue, don't extend the debate, that is for another time. I was merely helping PunkMaister with his definitions.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Because governments get complacent, and start taking liberties. When that happens, eventually you end up with them kicked out, either democratically, or by a revolution.

You rarely see this anymore.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually no. You've failed to adress my concern. I stated that environmentalism should not be stickied to either the right or the left. You have done this, clearly a ploy on your part to associate people like me, leftists, with environmental destruction, as only Libertarians can be environmentalists, which is wrong. Therefore you would gain support. While inedvertantly painting the left in bad light.

Advice for everyone: PunkMaister is clearly on a crusade against me and the left of politics. Ignore this and focus on the real issues.

Actually no you don't your BLOG focusses on blaming Capitalism for all the ills of the world and how creating a Marxist utopia somehow solves everything, again you prove your mastery at double talk.

And at no point I generalized saying all leftists have an agenda using environmentalism as an excuse but that the radical left sure does. Unlike you in your BLOG in which you clearly define Capitalism and Libertarianism in general as the enemy.

So guess what no matter how much you beg, people are not going to ignore an opposing view like mine quite the contrary.

BTW: When Spock first said that I copied his thread I had no clue to what he was even talking about, it was latter I found out he had a thread titled Socialists unite but the irony is he wants to have his own say and his own thread just for Marxists while silencing all opposition to his views. Hence his pleas to ignore me and all those who don't share his views.

[Fosus]

To be honest, the biggest problem in the world right now is: Global Capitalism.

What happens when you have a big corporation with way too much power? Just watch Avatar again and focus closely on RDA.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Fosus

To be honest, the biggest problem in the world right now is: Global Capitalism.

What happens when you have a big corporation with way too much power? Just watch Avatar again and focus closely on RDA.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the word "capitalism", because you seem to think that all corporations are bad, and money-making is bad, and capitalism is only fueling their "badness". But in fact, the corporate world is quite small, and does little in comparison to what the rest of the world's private businesses do.

A corporation is owned by shareholders, not by a set of individuals. And capitalism deals with freedom to make money on your own standards. If the world were communist, even if we all worked in perfect harmony, your paycheck at the end of the day would not be yours, but rather the state's. All private property you once owned would belong to the state, ultimately. Such movies like "Lord of the Rings" and "Avatar" could never be made outside a capitalist system, because their production would be regarded as "unnecessary to the welfare of the state". And even, if by some slim change such films were created, their production would be guided over by the government. If they don't like something you're doing, you must oblige. Environmentalism isn't in their interests? Scrap it. Anti-war conflicts with agendas? Remove it.

No individual would have any private rights, and no profit could be made by any particular person. Capitalism = rights of men. Communism/Socialism/Fascism = rights of man. The greater good of "man" is what's focused on, and individuals (men) have no way to advance themselves to their prosperity.

There remains corruption in the capitalist system. That's a fact; no question. But it's worlds better than supplying for a collective where no one person can left a finger without the government giving him/her permission to do so.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Actually no you don't your BLOG focusses on blaming Capitalism for all the ills of the world and how creating a Marxist utopia somehow solves everything, again you prove your mastery at double talk.

And at no point I generalized saying all leftists have an agenda using environmentalism as an excuse but that the radical left sure does. Unlike you in your BLOG in which you clearly define Capitalism and Libertarianism in general as the enemy.

No it doesn't, capitalism is only one of my points, of which there are many. Sharpen up tiger.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

So guess what no matter how much you beg, people are not going to ignore an opposing view like mine quite the contrary.

What I asked people to ignore was the ad hominem, or at least the discrete form of it that you have been dishing out.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

BTW: When Spock first said that I copied his thread I had no clue to what he was even talking about, it was latter I found out he had a thread titled Socialists unite but the irony is he wants to have his own say and his own thread just for Marxists while silencing all opposition to his views. Hence his pleas to ignore me and all those who don't share his views.

No. It is only right that I oppose you as the opposition, no one view should go unchallenged, not mine, yours, or anyones.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

No it doesn't, capitalism is only one of my points, of which there are many. Sharpen up tiger.

Your BLOG makes clear that Capitalism is the problem and that Marxism is the solution. Of that there is no doubt because all other points you make focus on the argument that they are happening because of Capitalism. End of story

Originally Posted by Spock

What I asked people to ignore was the ad hominem, or at least the discrete form of it that you have been dishing out.

No you have posted that they should ignore me altogether do not try to embellish it now.

Originally Posted by Spock

No. It is only right that I oppose you as the opposition, no one view should go unchallenged, not mine, yours, or anyones.

Except that the only you seem to know to oppose someone is by attempting to silence him or her by posting that he or her should be ignored while claiming that your arguments have more relevance than anyone else and as such should receive special treatment AKA being stickied, and I'm glad the administrators and moderators refused.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

No individual would have any private rights, and no profit could be made by any particular person. Capitalism = rights of men. Communism/Socialism/Fascism = rights of man. The greater good of "man" is what's focused on, and individuals (men) have no way to advance themselves to their prosperity.

A lot of this debate seems to come down to property rights. I know property rights are important for the functioning of a capitalistic system; however, I am not sure what part property rights play in a socialist system other than through the public ownership of certain business. I would think the enforcement of property rights is important toward the incentive of an individual to advance by economical means.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

A lot of this debate seems to come down to property rights. I know property rights are important for the functioning of a capitalistic system; however, I am not sure what part property rights play in a socialist system other than through the public ownership of certain business. I would think the enforcement of property rights is important toward the incentive of an individual to advance by economical means.

Is just not property, property is the fruit of your labor. Is what you have been able to obtain through it, in a socialist/communist collective such a thing doesn't exist. You are are just a cog in the machine of the state. And because you are nothing but a cog you are reduced to nothing but a slave of the state as well.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Is just not property, property is the fruit of your labor. Is what you have been able to obtain through it, in a socialist/communist collective such a thing doesn't exist. You are are just a cog in the machine of the state. And because you are nothing but a cog you are reduced to nothing but a slave of the state as well.

I am rather ignorant to the specifics of property rights (I'm using the economic definition of the term) in a socialist economy, but I do believe property rights exist in such economic systems. The main difference, I believe, is who has the authority as to how a resource is used. In a socialist system the government has more property rights where as private property rights tend to be weaker relative to a capitalistic system. What I am wondering is how much authority a government has over resources in the more socialistic systems, as well as the general state of private property rights in such systems. Maybe it's more of a continuum where the continuum has perfect free-markets and perfect controlled-markets as the endpoints with capitalistic-leaning and socialistic-leaning mixed markets between the end points.

In my previous post, I should have reviewed my knowledge of property rights as I failed to distinguish that I was speaking mostly in reference to private property rights.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Is just not property, property is the fruit of your labor. Is what you have been able to obtain through it, in a socialist/communist collective such a thing doesn't exist. You are are just a cog in the machine of the state. And because you are nothing but a cog you are reduced to nothing but a slave of the state as well.

Thats bollocks. You are a cog of a machine, just as you are under capitalism. Further, people are paid, you don't understand collectivism, your naivety astounds me. YOU ARE PAID ACCORDING TO LABOUR. HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS?

Edit: It was a hypothetical attack, I can understand why you deleted it though. Never the less, I knew it wouldn't hurt PunkMaister. I've been debating with him for months and his Skin is extremely thick. It was more to show him how I felt about his arrogance.

[Devourment]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I'm a libertarian. I think that even if 'global warming' (or 'climate change' as they renamed it when it became obvious temperatures weren't changing) is a transparent excuse to raise taxes and increase micromanagement.

It was renamed global climate change because temperatures were changing, hotter summers and colder winters. The release of greenhouse gasses causes temperature change, however not always increased temperatures, that's why it was changed to climate change.

Greenhouse gasses cause temperature extremes throughout the seasons, not permanent rises throughout the year, therefor continuing to call it global warming was pretty stupid.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Devourment

It was renamed global climate change because temperatures were changing, hotter summers and colder winters. The release of greenhouse gasses causes temperature change, however not always increased temperatures, that's why it was changed to climate change.

Greenhouse gasses cause temperature extremes throughout the seasons, not permanent rises throughout the year, therefor continuing to call it global warming was pretty stupid.

Why wasn't this mentioned prior to 2008? Why was it always called "global warming" for 20 years, and finally renamed after the Pacific Ocean's temperature dropped?

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Why wasn't this mentioned prior to 2008? Why was it always called "global warming" for 20 years, and finally renamed after the Pacific Ocean's temperature dropped?

"Climate change" has been used prior to 2008. The current US Global Change Research Program was called the US Climate Change Science Program from 2002 to 2008. Some say the term "climate change" was made popular by the second Bush Administration due to the term "climate change" being a little less alarming that the term "global warning."