NationStates Jolt Archive

i belive the u.s. environmentaly protected areas are not entirely protected for how can they be when the government has the potential to overide these protections and log them, this does not sit right with me for bush is trying undermine our environment we should have these areas protected for ever.

I ask again ... the market isn't perfect, but if it doesn't work, what makes you think the state will work?

If you really like the environment so much then go BUY the land. That way if anyone wants to log on it, you can sue them.

i belive the u.s. environmentaly protected areas are not entirely protected for how can they be when the government has the potential to overide these protections and log them, this does not sit right with me for bush is trying undermine our environment we should have these areas protected for ever.

Indeed. The obvious solution is collectivism, overthrow Bush and destroy the capitalist system.

Of course it shouldn't just be special areas that are protected, all unsustainable exploitation of the environment should be stopped.

i belive the u.s. environmentaly protected areas are not entirely protected for how can they be when the government has the potential to overide these protections and log them, this does not sit right with me for bush is trying undermine our environment we should have these areas protected for ever.

Indeed. The obvious solution is collectivism, overthrow Bush and destroy the capitalist system.

Of course it shouldn't just be special areas that are protected, all unsustainable exploitation of the environment should be stopped.

What is "unsustainable"? If you honestly think collectivism is the solution to the environment, I encourage you to take a deep breath in Smolensk or a nice, long drink of the putrid waters of the River Volga.

I ask again ... the market isn't perfect, but if it doesn't work, what makes you think the state will work?

If you really like the environment so much then go BUY the land. That way if anyone wants to log on it, you can sue them.

As I said in the other thread, suing someone after they have done the damage really isn't that helpful, especially as they will probably still make money.

I ask again ... the market isn't perfect, but if it doesn't work, what makes you think the state will work?

If you really like the environment so much then go BUY the land. That way if anyone wants to log on it, you can sue them.

As I said in the other thread, suing someone after they have done the damage really isn't that helpful, especially as they will probably still make money.

Sue them for a lot then... what would another solution be?

Buy the land. It''s the only coercion-free solution.

you know i have yet to see any amount of punitive damages stop a corporation.

Example: The Exxon Valdez Spill
All exxon valdez did was make corporations go through back alley negotiations so the tankers can't be traced to them as easily. So in turn they wouldn't need to pay for the spills

Nothing changed though

i belive the u.s. environmentaly protected areas are not entirely protected for how can they be when the government has the potential to overide these protections and log them, this does not sit right with me for bush is trying undermine our environment we should have these areas protected for ever.

Indeed. The obvious solution is collectivism, overthrow Bush and destroy the capitalist system.

Of course it shouldn't just be special areas that are protected, all unsustainable exploitation of the environment should be stopped.

What is "unsustainable"? If you honestly think collectivism is the solution to the environment, I encourage you to take a deep breath in Smolensk or a nice, long drink of the putrid waters of the River Volga.

Unsustainable is something that cannot continue or that causes damage that cannot be repaired. The use of fossil fuels is unsustainable, use of renewable energy is sustainable but implementing systems to use it may not be. Dumping waste in the sea is not sustainable, Logging (except in specific conditions) is not sustainable. That may not be a perfect definition, though it is what I mean by it.

Now collectivism, do you really want to get into this debate again? Stalinism is slavery not collectivism, under Stalinism people are forced to work for the good of their leaders and the elite, not for themselves. Thus the Soviet Union and any other Stalinist state you can think of cannot be used as examples of collectivism, socialism or communism. They can if you like be used as an example of a system similar to the logical end result of unregulated capitalism.

you know i have yet to see any amount of punitive damages stop a corporation.

Example: The Exxon Valdez Spill
All exxon valdez did was make corporations go through back alley negotiations so the tankers can't be traced to them as easily. So in turn they wouldn't need to pay for the spills

Nothing changed though

Until you can think of a better solution, then...

The Exxon Valdez Spill might have been bad, but it is an isolated incident. Large scale state planning is sure to devastate the environment. US Agricultural Subsidies (Omnibus) have caused farmers to oversaturate their land and use unsustainable methods. This is what caused the dust bowl. Chinese and Russian state economic plans led to environmental destruction on a scale unparalleled by capitalist agriculture.

i agree with you wolomy;

i think the earth is sacred and since we have the power to protect it from our own follies why not do so.

You are ignoring the key question... WHY do you think coercion will work?

The government is prone to corruption just like everything else, perhaps more so since government doesn't have to produce, it can take.

A sensible balance must be achieved... the market whenever possible, the state only when absolutely necessary.

I ask again ... the market isn't perfect, but if it doesn't work, what makes you think the state will work?

If you really like the environment so much then go BUY the land. That way if anyone wants to log on it, you can sue them.

As I said in the other thread, suing someone after they have done the damage really isn't that helpful, especially as they will probably still make money.

Sue them for a lot then... what would another solution be?

Buy the land. It''s the only coercion-free solution.

It is not a solution, for one most people cannot afford to buy land, and secondly even if you did who will enforce the law? The US government seems somewhat reluctant to hold US corporations accountable for damage done overseas, a nice example being the Bhopal gas leak disaster in which thousands of people were killed. Only minimal compensation was paid to the Indian government and to this day those responsible go unpunished. If the US doesn't care about that what makes you think they will do anything when people or national governments are not directly involved?

The only viable long term solution is revolution. In the short term a more social democratic government could help, alternativly you could resort to direct action against those who destroy the environment for profit.

"The only viable long term solution is revolution. In the short term a more social democratic government could help, alternativly you could resort to direct action against those who destroy the environment for profit."

once again i am in agreement with wolomy, although we may be in a corrupt "democracy" people always have the power of bringing about change and having their voices heard even if they have to die for their views as in a dictatorship. people power works we don't protest for nothing. although i might add leaders can corupt the balots as in florida

"The only viable long term solution is revolution. In the short term a more social democratic government could help, alternativly you could resort to direct action against those who destroy the environment for profit."

once again i am in agreement with wolomy, although we may be in a corrupt "democracy" people always have the power of bringing about change and having their voices heard even if they have to die for their views as in a dictatorship. people power works we don't protest for nothing. although i might add leaders can corupt the balots as in florida

Wolomy there are places in the USA where land sells for less than $100 an acre. Two-thirds of American families own houses and most of those people own the plots of land that their houses are on.

Most people CAN afford to own land in the USA.

You are ignoring the key question... WHY do you think coercion will work?

The government is prone to corruption just like everything else, perhaps more so since government doesn't have to produce, it can take.

A sensible balance must be achieved... the market whenever possible, the state only when absolutely necessary.

People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. In destroying the environment you infringe on the rights of other people and other species thus you must be stopped by any means possible.

Of couse I am not entirely convinced a state is capable of doing this, though the social democracies of Scandinavia did achieve a lot even with external pressure and the whole cold war thing.
The alternative to peaceful democratic socialism is a mass revolution which has potential to be far more destructive. If all power does corrupt this will be the only way. For now I believe a state will work, if controlled by the people and free from any direct capitalist influence.

"The only viable long term solution is revolution. In the short term a more social democratic government could help, alternativly you could resort to direct action against those who destroy the environment for profit."

once again i am in agreement with wolomy, although we may be in a corrupt "democracy" people always have the power of bringing about change and having their voices heard even if they have to die for their views as in a dictatorship. people power works we don't protest for nothing. although i might add leaders can corupt the balots as in florida

Florida merely proves that no government, however democratic, is truly free and volutnary.

but what you say is a vague genralization how can you even own land we live and die over time and land shifts to different people. we can create a more lasting impression with our power of orgainizing and speaking out to change how the sytem works and even then people look back on our dessicions and say "hey thats agreat idea."

You are ignoring the key question... WHY do you think coercion will work?

The government is prone to corruption just like everything else, perhaps more so since government doesn't have to produce, it can take.

A sensible balance must be achieved... the market whenever possible, the state only when absolutely necessary.

People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. In destroying the environment you infringe on the rights of other people and other species thus you must be stopped by any means possible.

Of couse I am not entirely convinced a state is capable of doing this, though the social democracies of Scandinavia did achieve a lot even with external pressure and the whole cold war thing.
The alternative to peaceful democratic socialism is a mass revolution which has potential to be far more destructive. If all power does corrupt this will be the only way. For now I believe a state will work, if controlled by the people and free from any direct capitalist influence.

It's no clear and direct harm. Using your logic I could make a very convincing argument to abolish profanity because it might offend someone.

Wolomy there are places in the USA where land sells for less than $100 an acre. Two-thirds of American families own houses and most of those people own the plots of land that their houses are on.

Most people CAN afford to own land in the USA.

I was thinking globally. I suppose this thread was on the subject of the USA so you can be forgiven this time.

Sleeping now.

although power corrupts we still have the power to voice our opinions as i said before

Wolomy there are places in the USA where land sells for less than $100 an acre. Two-thirds of American families own houses and most of those people own the plots of land that their houses are on.

Most people CAN afford to own land in the USA.

I was thinking globally. I suppose this thread was on the subject of the USA so you can be forgiven this time.

Sleeping now.

There are probably places in the world were land cells for like 50 cents an acre. We bought Louisiana for 3 cents an acre and Alaska for 2 cents an acre.

although power corrupts we still have the power to voice our opinions as i said before

You do anyways. Free speech is very important to capitalism. The Internet is the device with which capitalism triumphed the Soviets.

what about right now? what about enflation?
where i live in the us you have to be at least upper middle class to buy a scrap of land. the land that is cheap is getting smaller and smaller.

what about right now? what about enflation?
where i live in the us you have to be at least upper middle class to buy a scrap of land. the land that is cheap is getting smaller and smaller.

Most American families own land. If you own a house you probably own land. And there is a lot of unsettled land in the United States. You might not be able to buy an acre of Manhattan, but I bet most Americans could afford and acre of Wyoming.

The key is to get some special interest group like the Sierra Club to buy up large tracts of forest which is relatively cheap.

sorry i keep reffering to different subtopics

and i support groups like that although in the long run i ask are they as stable as national environmental support that backs nationally protected land?

and i support groups like that although in the long run i ask are they as stable as national environmental support that backs nationally protected land?

I'd say more stable. Governments have to be reelected. Sierra Club doesn't.

thats true but i worry that a corrupt government like a dictatorship could destroy the sierra club and take the land anyway what do you think

thats true but i worry that a corrupt government like a dictatorship could destroy the sierra club and take the land anyway what do you think

Well duh. That's an argument to have a smaller govenrment.

thats true but i worry that a corrupt government like a dictatorship could destroy the sierra club and take the land anyway what do you think

Well duh. That's an argument to have a smaller govenrment.

Perhaps, but replacing with business is only going to make things worse.

As for buying land, most people are far poorer than those in the US and therefore cannot afford to buy land in order to protect it (owning a house doesn't really help save the environment). So say someone buys some land and a western corporation decides that this land is an ideal site for their new factory. Lets say the land owner refuses to sell, which side do you think the government will be on?

Of course you will use this as an example of why government is all evil and such, so lets say there is no government only business, what is to stop a corporation simply taking the land? If they can make money from breaking the law and get away with it what is stopping them from doing so?

although power corrupts we still have the power to voice our opinions as i said before

You do anyways. Free speech is very important to capitalism. The Internet is the device with which capitalism triumphed the Soviets.

Soviet style communism collapsed more from the inside than anything else. And I don't think the Internet had much to do with it at all.

and i support groups like that although in the long run i ask are they as stable as national environmental support that backs nationally protected land?

I'd say more stable. Governments have to be reelected. Sierra Club doesn't.

Re-elected? Not in the US. Here they're appointed by teh Supreme Court.

Of course you will use this as an example of why government is all evil and such, so lets say there is no government only business, what is to stop a corporation simply taking the land? If they can make money from breaking the law and get away with it what is stopping them from doing so?

That's the situation we have in the US right now. Corporations have become so large, and have so much influence on the government that the line between corporations and government is blurred to non-existant. Look at who is filling the cabinet positions of the current illegal presidential regime. They all come from business. Look at the Heritage Foundation "think tank." Republican congressmen and senators go to them to have them craft legislation. Who's on the board of the Heritage Foundation? CEOs. Where does their funding come from? US and foreign corporations, CEOs and anonymous individuals (who are probably millionaire congressmen and senators, and CEOs).

It all goes back to my point which everyone likes to avoid, which is people power rules human being s have unlimited potental
to alter for better or for worse
in this case i think the un should run some greater enviromental protection laws

There are probably places in the world were land cells for like 50 cents an acre. We bought Louisiana for 3 cents an acre and Alaska for 2 cents an acre.
And how much of Alaska did the Russians really control?

And of course in Louisiana the only land controlled by by the frenh were the small bits in the south and every now and then a basealong the Mississippi. Even that was stolen to start with.

All of the US land was either stolen from their native or purchased from a neighboring nation who did not control it(e.g. a nation in Brooklyn "sold" Manhatten, controlled then by a nearby tribe to the Dutch. The French "sold" the US Lousiana.)

Of course you will use this as an example of why government is all evil and such, so lets say there is no government only business, what is to stop a corporation simply taking the land? If they can make money from breaking the law and get away with it what is stopping them from doing so?

That's the situation we have in the US right now. Corporations have become so large, and have so much influence on the government that the line between corporations and government is blurred to non-existant. Look at who is filling the cabinet positions of the current illegal presidential regime. They all come from business. Look at the Heritage Foundation "think tank." Republican congressmen and senators go to them to have them craft legislation. Who's on the board of the Heritage Foundation? CEOs. Where does their funding come from? US and foreign corporations, CEOs and anonymous individuals (who are probably millionaire congressmen and senators, and CEOs).
Bush was voted in fair and square.
It was illegal for the Democrats to expect to recount only those counties where the Democrats lost and not recount those counties where the Democrats won. Besides after the election the Sentinel Star got ahold of all the ballots and did their own recount. Guess what? Gore still lost. Guess what else? The Sentinel Star is a bunch of liberals instead of pasting it on the front page like they had originally planned they filed it away.

Who would you put in a think tank a bunch of homeless people? They won't help in making decisions about things. If you want to know about the best way to draw gas out of the ground with minimum or no environmental impact do you ask an environmentalist who doesn't know how to draw gas out of the ground? Or do you bring in some expert? Where do you think he got that expertise from? If he was any good why would he be low man on the totem pole in his field? Fact is he would have worked his way up to be in charge of a department or even a CEO. When you want to know things about business or how it would affect business you don't go ask the ACLU or the Sierra Club you find yourself people who haven a proven track record that they know what they are doing. So their think tank are full of CEO's and big wigs from corporations. Who else would they use people who know nothing about running these type of businesses?

Some folks need to get out of lala land and back into the realm of what is realistically possible. I bet your one of the ones who think we can have 100% medical coverage without costing you any money. The doctors would love to take a pay cut, the drug companies would continue making more drugs for free. Doesn't work that way.

Of course you will use this as an example of why government is all evil and such, so lets say there is no government only business, what is to stop a corporation simply taking the land? If they can make money from breaking the law and get away with it what is stopping them from doing so?

That's the situation we have in the US right now. Corporations have become so large, and have so much influence on the government that the line between corporations and government is blurred to non-existant. Look at who is filling the cabinet positions of the current illegal presidential regime. They all come from business. Look at the Heritage Foundation "think tank." Republican congressmen and senators go to them to have them craft legislation. Who's on the board of the Heritage Foundation? CEOs. Where does their funding come from? US and foreign corporations, CEOs and anonymous individuals (who are probably millionaire congressmen and senators, and CEOs).
Bush was voted in fair and square.
It was illegal for the Democrats to expect to recount only those counties where the Democrats lost and not recount those counties where the Democrats won. Besides after the election the Sentinel Star got ahold of all the ballots and did their own recount. Guess what? Gore still lost. Guess what else? The Sentinel Star is a bunch of liberals instead of pasting it on the front page like they had originally planned they filed it away.

Whether it was legal or not is debatable. Gore got more votes than Bush and Bush was elected by a minority (most Americans do not vote at all).

Of course it is important to remember that the Democrats are in many ways no better than the Republicans, they are both right wing and both favour business. Democrats happen to be slightly more socially liberal but I believe this is simply to give Americans an illusion of choice. Get past the superficial but highly publicised differences, like views on abortions, affirmative action etc and you will see that they are both representing the same people.

Who would you put in a think tank a bunch of homeless people? They won't help in making decisions about things. If you want to know about the best way to draw gas out of the ground with minimum or no environmental impact do you ask an environmentalist who doesn't know how to draw gas out of the ground? Or do you bring in some expert? Where do you think he got that expertise from? If he was any good why would he be low man on the totem pole in his field? Fact is he would have worked his way up to be in charge of a department or even a CEO. When you want to know things about business or how it would affect business you don't go ask the ACLU or the Sierra Club you find yourself people who haven a proven track record that they know what they are doing. So their think tank are full of CEO's and big wigs from corporations. Who else would they use people who know nothing about running these type of businesses?

I would think that impartial people would be good, someone from the oil industry is not the best person to advise on environmental policy because shockingly enough they have quite a lot to gain from destroying the environment. Allowing oil companies to direct foreign policy is an equally bad idea, though that is what the current US administration appears to be doing. Environmentalists may not know so much about extracting oil (though I am sure many do) but they can advise on the least damaging way of doing so or even more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Some folks need to get out of lala land and back into the realm of what is realistically possible. I bet your one of the ones who think we can have 100% medical coverage without costing you any money. The doctors would love to take a pay cut, the drug companies would continue making more drugs for free. Doesn't work that way.

Ever heard of income tax? it can be quite an effective way of funding such things to ensure that those who need healthcare get it when they need it regardless of their ability to pay. Works very nicely in much of Europe and I believe Canada.

Of course you will use this as an example of why government is all evil and such, so lets say there is no government only business, what is to stop a corporation simply taking the land? If they can make money from breaking the law and get away with it what is stopping them from doing so?

That's the situation we have in the US right now. Corporations have become so large, and have so much influence on the government that the line between corporations and government is blurred to non-existant. Look at who is filling the cabinet positions of the current illegal presidential regime. They all come from business. Look at the Heritage Foundation "think tank." Republican congressmen and senators go to them to have them craft legislation. Who's on the board of the Heritage Foundation? CEOs. Where does their funding come from? US and foreign corporations, CEOs and anonymous individuals (who are probably millionaire congressmen and senators, and CEOs).
Bush was voted in fair and square.
It was illegal for the Democrats to expect to recount only those counties where the Democrats lost and not recount those counties where the Democrats won. Besides after the election the Sentinel Star got ahold of all the ballots and did their own recount. Guess what? Gore still lost. Guess what else? The Sentinel Star is a bunch of liberals instead of pasting it on the front page like they had originally planned they filed it away.

Whether it was legal or not is debatable. Gore got more votes than Bush and Bush was elected by a minority (most Americans do not vote at all).

Course you've never heard of the Electoral college. The original idea was so that States would vote for the President not the people. It was individual states that decided they would vote their Electoral College for the one whom the people voted for. Most states decided taht 100% of their Electoral College would go for the candidate that won state wide even if it wasn't 100% of the voters voting that way. Don't like it then get involved more in state politics because that is where the problem is.

Of course it is important to remember that the Democrats are in many ways no better than the Republicans, they are both right wing and both favour business. Democrats happen to be slightly more socially liberal but I believe this is simply to give Americans an illusion of choice. Get past the superficial but highly publicised differences, like views on abortions, affirmative action etc and you will see that they are both representing the same people.

I hate Democrats because they want to take the money out of the pockets of the people who produce and give it to those who don't. I earned my money it should go to pay for things I need like emergency response, roads, etc not for social wellfare programs to help fix those idiots who have made bad choices like getting pregnant before they could afford a family for one example.

I hate Republicans because they want to control how I live my life. If I want to have a harem with 50 wives that should be my business. For example the government should not legalize gay marriage because it should not be a criminal offense in the first place it is not the Federal governments job to regulate marriages just contract disputes and those things individuals are not best at taking care of themselves like an Army.

I think individuals should be free to do any thing they choose to do as long as it does not interfere with another individual doing the same. That means also me keeping my own money for me. BTW I make less than 30k right now but someday I hope to make millions and I will deffinitely still have this opinion then.

Who would you put in a think tank a bunch of homeless people? They won't help in making decisions about things. If you want to know about the best way to draw gas out of the ground with minimum or no environmental impact do you ask an environmentalist who doesn't know how to draw gas out of the ground? Or do you bring in some expert? Where do you think he got that expertise from? If he was any good why would he be low man on the totem pole in his field? Fact is he would have worked his way up to be in charge of a department or even a CEO. When you want to know things about business or how it would affect business you don't go ask the ACLU or the Sierra Club you find yourself people who haven a proven track record that they know what they are doing. So their think tank are full of CEO's and big wigs from corporations. Who else would they use people who know nothing about running these type of businesses?

I would think that impartial people would be good, someone from the oil industry is not the best person to advise on environmental policy because shockingly enough they have quite a lot to gain from destroying the environment. Allowing oil companies to direct foreign policy is an equally bad idea, though that is what the current US administration appears to be doing. Environmentalists may not know so much about extracting oil (though I am sure many do) but they can advise on the least damaging way of doing so or even more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Someone from the Environmentalists aren't the best choice because they usually are communists or socialists in nature and could care less about the profitability of a business and would prefer a corporation to go extinct even to the point of screwing up our ability to drive to work in order to save a species most folks could care less about. Or for that matter protect a moose in Antartica as their excuss to not allow drilling completly ignoring the fact that where there is drilling taking place there the moose is multiplying even greater numbers. They like the warm pipes.
Since Oil people best know how to extract oil they also know best to do it without waste. Waste is spilling profitable oil on the ground. An environmentalist might not like that oil on the ground they are not the best suited to know how to make it less likely to happen.

Some folks need to get out of lala land and back into the realm of what is realistically possible. I bet your one of the ones who think we can have 100% medical coverage without costing you any money. The doctors would love to take a pay cut, the drug companies would continue making more drugs for free. Doesn't work that way.

Ever heard of income tax? it can be quite an effective way of funding such things to ensure that those who need healthcare get it when they need it regardless of their ability to pay. Works very nicely in much of Europe and I believe Canada.
If you can afford to pay your income tax at a level to pay for your medical expenses then why place your medical expenses into your income tax and instead allow you to pay it directly yourself? Oh I get it you want to spend someone elses money on your medical expenses. Like Canada does. You know for example it takes them 6 - 10 weeks to get an MRI. I can get one tomorrow by paying for it. My mother was complaining recently how it was not fair that these new fangle antiacid pills cost 1 buck a piece. I told her why does she need the best pill for antacid when she could by Tums for 2 bucks a bottle. She doesn't drive a limosine she drives a worn out convertable. Why does she demand limosine level of medical care if she can't pay for it. Doctors, drug manufacturers don't work for free. And we don't all deserve the best of everything. Not to say the rich actually do either but at least they can afford to pay for it. Some day they'll come out with something newer and better and those buck a pill pills will become cheaper and instead of saying yeah I can afford them now she'll be complaining about the newer more expensive pills because like every liberal its not fair she can't afford the best. Its not fair I'm driving a 1991 4 door sedan either. But I deal with it. Don't take my money to pay for your problems use your own money to do it with.