Many people are suckered by the political motivations of others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist agenda. Taking action againt global warming will have huge social benefits, EVEN IF GW IS EXAGGERATED.
While I truly respect your honesty, I can't help but wonder if Environmental Socialists all over the world are cringing at your admission -- Socialism fails at the ballot box (for a very good reason IMO) and must be imposed in more subtle ways...
Actually socialism is quite successful here in America, we have Social Security, Medicare, a national highway system, public schools, public firefighters, national parks. I'm not talking about anything Marxist, just social institutions that contribute to the common good.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...tudent-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Yes some industries naturally lend themselves to being publicly owned - public utilities is a good example because it would be inefficient to have 10 different power companies laying cable all over town. It is my opinion though, and most Americans would agree with me, that the private solution almost always produces better results than the public one (e.g. public vs private schools, US Postal vs UPS, etc). What about public housing? The DMV? Did you know that in the early 60's Congress claimed that Medicare would cost us $24B in 2004 (in adjusted dollars); the actual number was over $250B! Put simply, I think the gov't solution to a problem should be the last resort. But discussing the "merits" of Socialism is really irrelevant. The point I've been making is that if you want to pursue a global Socialist political agenda then do so in a straight-forward manner by convincing us how great the Utopian paradise will be, rather than use AGW as a tool to claim that "we're all going to DIE if something isn't done immediately, so pass all of my Socialist laws!" My point is that when you have an ulterior motive of course you're going to defend AGW and the CRU and Climategate even to the point of detriment to the integrity of the scientific process.
That is only the opinion in the abstract, after years of propaganda. Faced with being dependent on UPS for all their mail service, private schools for all their education, most Americans would have second thoughts. Faced with actual examples (private roads, armies, police, fire control, etc,) most Americans would laugh at you. The only reason most Americans favor private "health insurance" is that their initial reluctance to share hospitals with niggers has been brought up to date with lies about welfare bums and lazy "lower class" people we can't afford to treat for free. We tried that, not actually socialist of course (don't be silly- in Reagan's America? look at the health care debate) but government-centered regulation of carbon emissions, by lw that is, to slow down the boosting until we could figure out what's going to happen. You guys, the private "markets are the solution" yakkers, filled the public discourse with chaff and foisted Cap and Trade on us. Now you're complaining about the cost, Al Gore making a profit, etc. Rational argument doesn't work that well with you guys.
Anyway, my point remains that AGW is being used as a tool for Socialists. If you, iceaura, are not such a Socialist and you are truly concerned for the future of humanity due to AGW, then I recommend coming up with some solutions that will win us "private 'markets are the solution' yakkers" over to your side (e.g. nuclear power).
But you seem short of actual examples. I'm not seeing a whole lot of socialism floating around about to be implemented. Notice the automatic assumption - we can expect no help at all from the right. That is a fact borne out by years of experience, but it's still a bit startling to just see it assumed. If AGW is a problem, as seems increasingly likely, and solutions are to be found, as seems increasingly urgent, they will be found by the lefties only, apparently - and they better be able to compromise them or dumb them down enough to sell them to a bunch of righties (who basically regard the common good as somebody else's problem) and still get them to work. This entire approach - sell me on your idea for not blowing off my feet, make it something that fits my preconceptions and temporary enthusiasms, find a way I don't have to pay for it, or I will just blow off my other foot and yours too - and it will be your fault, for not stopping me - that entire approach is just weird.
It is what it is - I would rather live in hot free country than a Socialist one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Yes, you read that right.) If you're worried about AGW then come to me with a non-Socialist solution; otherwise your motivations, and therefore your arguments, are suspect. Your whole "lefties vs righties" and "free market wackos" comments only strengthen my point that AGW is more political in nature than it is an actual crisis.
And teach you what "socialist"means, and what "solution" is necessary to the what looming threat actually exists, and get you up to speed on physical reality, and so forth. With no effort from you - because not even physical reality is any of your concern, apparently, if it fails to align with this months star charts on the needs of your political aganda. While you do what, exactly? Come up with dumbass shit like "I would rather live in a hot free country than a Socialist one"? Bestir your lazy, ignorant ass just enough to apply the label "socialist" to whatever you are told is "socialist", including all governmental action for the common good, and anything originating in any Democratic Party strategy room? Because you are making a few assumptions, there, with your choice setup: is it possible to maintain civil rights and political freedoms in all the scenarios made likely by this radical CO2 boosting? Do you think things like drought water management or martial law can be avoided by not allowing socialism to intrude on your private political fantasy world?
I'm not looking to pick a fight. You guys have already made my point that AGW is more about politics than a crisis. That doesn't make AGW proponents "bad", in fact I'm sure that the Socialists believe the world would be a better place with their policies in force, even if they have to deceive the people to get there. Three questions (to iceaura): 1) Are you an American? 2) Do you consider yourself to be "far-left" politically? What about a Socialist? 3) How do you feel about nuclear power?
No. You've insisted on ignoring the physical reality in order to avoid taking responsibility for responding to it. The reason you don't want to respond to it is that no response is possible within your ideology - your ideology is bankrupt when events require governmental action for the common good. You have no way to guide, or even justify it. 1) yes 2) I am slightly left, and solidly libertarian, on the standard measure scales (such as Political Compass). Left libertarian, much more libertarian than left. 3) I don't feel about nuclear power, I think about it. It is the most expensive and dangerous of the alternatives to fossil fuels, and it concentrates power both private and public further than I prefer. I prefer heat engine solar and conservative design - safer, distributed control, and half the price. There's more upside in possible improvements, as well.
You're more libertarian than left? Libertarian, as in "keep the gov't out of my life"? Hmm I guess you would know more that I would but that's not how you're coming across. I don't think you're getting my point, btw. If I was convinced that the best solution to avoid a nasty heat-death was to enact some gov't regulation then, fine. You're making it sound like I proclaimed that any gov't involvement at all leads to inevitable global Socialism. What I'm opposed to is: A) Exaggeration of the crisis and B) Exploitation of the crisis for a specific political agenda I don't know what heat engine solar is but Bush had mentioned something about a giant solar panel satellite which uses lasers to transfer energy to the surface. It sounded unbelievably interesting to me and got almost no press coverage...
That's only half of it. The other half of libertarian is keeping the corporation out of my life. How would you ever be "so convinced"? You aren't paying attention, and you are demanding that other people do all the work of convincing you. Nevertheless you have opinions about nuclear power, the role of government in responding to the CO2 buildup, etc. Because complete historical, factual, and circumstantial ignorance is not a factor in the confidence with which you come to judgment about what to do, politically. That was along with going to Mars and having the Iraq War pay for itself with the oil revenue. Oh - and jailing people for many years for any of an ever-lengthening list of crimes, posting the Ten Commandments on the courtroom walls of the State, and blocking American trade or travel with places like Cuba or Iran. You call yourself a libertarian, but you get your ideas and information about policy from the likes of the US Republican establishment? Some of the most authoritarian politicians in the Western Hemisphere right now, and those are your sources for "libertarian" responses to various issues.
It is? Please give me a reference to your definition so I know we both agree on what Libertarian means. Also, I'm not completely sure what "keeping corporation out of your life" means. I can choose not to buy a Big Mac; what ultimately happens if I choose not to pay my taxes? Also, how is advancing a global Socialist agenda in the name of solving AGW "keeping corporation out of your life"? Iceaura, if you're a Socialist just be big enough to admit it. Socialism isn't a dirty word necessarily; most Socialists I know are well-meaning idealists. I searched for "heat engine solar" and couldn't find anything so I'm thinking you meant "solar heat engine"? I also did a search for Space-Based Solar Power, the one that you apparently discarded because Bush brought it up, and it seems to have true potential. Think about what's going on here, you're screaming that we need to solve AGW and I've told you why I fight it (due to suspect motivations). Then I suggest a couple of technologies (nuclear and SBSP) that could help solve AGW while at the same time avoid the appearance of attempting to advance a Socialist agenda, yet you dismiss them and call me ignorant while spewing froth and vitriol...forgive me but you are doing a poor job convincing me that you yourself are not using AGW as a tool to advance a Socialist agenda.
Of course I would be overt about my desire for a greater emphasis on socialist institutions. On the other hand, limiting the output of greenhouse gasses isn't socialism, it's just regulation of commerce, a necessary and integral component of our Democracy.
Yep and I respect you for admitting it; I don't have faith that iceaura is as forthcoming about his true political views. My feeling is that a desperate desire for Socialist institutions might create a "blinding" effect when analyzing AGW data, as evidenced by the (now 3!) recent scandals regarding the interpretation and presentation of data at the IPCC. Officials said that, for example, they were aware of the falsification of the Himalayan melting projections before the recent conference, yet did not correct it in the report because "they wanted to spur global leaders into action". Action such as this does a disservice to Science because it shows that scientists' claims can be subject to personal biases and agendas which ultimately assails the integrity of the Scientific process. A bit of regulation of green house gases isn't really Socialism to me and would work well in conjunction with Nuclear and SBSP energies. Cap and Trade IS Socialist, however, because I see it as an attempt to make the productive nations "pay" the less productive ones for the "right" to use their carbon credits. Combine that with the "Russian cover" that I mentioned before and the "Chinese exemptions" and a curious pattern emerges...FOLLOW THE MONEY.
I'm not worried about the "appearance" of any kind of agenda - especially in the eyes of someone who seems puzzled at the notion of oppressive corporate power curbing one's liberty (Google "company town"), or says stuff like this: But the idea that nuclear power plants and huge space based solar lasers are somehow - by their nature as technologies - going to help in the task of keeping authoritarian government (let alone the corporations it will back) out of our lives strikes me as more than a little naive. if you want personal liberty, the last thing you want is centralized dependency on distant and monopolistic and intrusive bureaucracies for the daily necessities of your life. Especially when they are so expensive, and you can't not pay for them once they're set up - it costs far more to shut a nuke down non-disastrously than it does to build it. Do you really think you are going to have a choice about whether or not to buy security and safety - and power - from your friendly three-counties-over nuke? If you don't read English well and overlooked the fact that "heat engine" is a modifier separating the subject from PV, or photovoltaic, solar, even just a straight Google on the words gets you this: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&a...=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images We don't. You think there's a big huge difference between a corporation catching you smoking dope with a mandatory piss test on Tuesday morning and firing you from the only good job in town, depriving you of health insurance and already invested monies, costing you your house and home; and a government catching you smoking dope on the weekends by pulling you over for speeding and putting you in jail for three months. I don't. I would rather live in a Finnish commune than a coal company town - more freedom, less misery, better looking women. I'm not "screaming" about anything, I'm swearing at you for being a dumbass and a representative of a pack of dumbasses so influential in their ignorance that they managed to break the economy of the richest and strongest country on earth in one generation, just with their political foolishness. Bush bringing it up would be a good reason to discard almost anything, but that's been a really, really bad idea since Reagan made lasers in space the boondoggle du jour. Back then we were defeating the Soviets with "fighting mirrors" and "brilliant pebbles", and we spent billions on hiring consultants and specially qualified contractors, none of whom ever went to jail (Reagan wasn't even impeached).
