|
U-Know! Forum » Better than Capitalism |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 19:30
|
||
|
I've come to the conclusion that whilst 'trading' is fine, it's a shite way to run a government (no surprises there). It's also a shite 'be all and end all' monocular vision. So I would propose a non-governmental body to oversee government practices, to sever the ties from industry and maintain an open-door, open-conference, open-everything policy. Complete transparency. Trading needs to be governed, and the only way it can be sensibly governed is by an environmental agency with a tough policy, to police all manufacture and trading. In tandem would operate a fair trade body, that would ensure the harmony between Rights for the Planet, and Rights for People. I can't see how else we could progress? Capitalism decrees that NO force be brought to bear on anyone unless they break the law. Well, that doesn't help the planet, or the small guy who can't afford the legal help he needs. So all LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL and FAIR TRADING initiatives should be met by the public purse, unless a country is developing a system of democracy, in which case it surely would need money to set it up. No natio-anal debts, they are stupid. And while I'm at it, no borders, one world, six billion souls, and endless diversity, under one rule; respect. Anyone? Another big stumbling block is the land ownership/real estate. Bring back common land with community initiatives to the fore?
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 19:32
|
||
I forgot to mention that the Private purse plays an equal role in the Global Environment Commission. There is no pollution tax, because polluters get shut down. The tax is just a tax.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 20:23
|
||
|
Compassionate capitalism is an oxymoron I'm afraid. Any system based on trade results in competition and exploitation. To police the actions of trade is state capitalism, which is what Russia had, china has (though its changing it) and Cuba, N.Korea also have. Okay, now I see what yr saying, that if they were ethical and truly adopted the 'production for need' principle this will end exploitation (of land, people and resources). However, this is a 'flick the switch' system as it would have to happen in the entire world simultaneously. One nation could not adopt this, as in our current state not a single nation can survive on it's own, Well, not without overly exploiting its people, land and resources (like Russia, China etc, etc). Also if a nation tried it it would threaten the stability of the other nations of the world, they would raise an army to kick its ass in order to protect their own systems, mostly from their own people getting ideas that the other system is a good thing. (see the invasion of the white armies into Russia post revolution, the actions of the US in central America, Portugal etc, etc). Now, Gadaffi in Libya seems to have pulled off a reasonably good attempt at this sorta thing. His system is detailed in the 'green book' and is well worth a read. HOWEVER it cannot work anywhere outside of Libya, as it relies on the legacy of it's people nomadic past and its erm.. multi dynastic family support network. Which we westerners, and most other easterners dont have.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 20:24
|
||
Not based on trade, I didnt mean trade per se. Barter is ok, but trade 'trade' results in peices, results in fluctuations etc, or it's just State Capitalism. State Capitalism is bad, just ask any Russian over 30.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 20:36
|
||
|
"Any system based on trade results in competition and exploitation." That's pretty black and white eh Stray? I wasn't talking about 'compassionate' capitalism, I was talking about strictly enforcing certain issues like fair trade and pollution/non-renewability. Exploitation (based upon a scientific not a 'moral' model) isn't an issue in a fair trade environment. Ingenuity will find a renewable method for everything. Our problem is that we are not enforcing a cost/profit limit. The cost being the source and the production. Logging tropical hardwoods for instance, is 'scientifically' proven to be an ill-advised activity, the lungs of the world are too great a cost for our concrete shoring, which can be made from recycled fibreboard. Compassion is only common sense on this planet. There is not enough of it.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 20:48
|
||
|
"Okay, now I see what yr saying, that if they were ethical and truly adopted the 'production for need' principle this will end exploitation (of land, people and resources). However, this is a 'flick the switch' system as it would have to happen in the entire world simultaneously." You see this as an ethical debate? I see it as common sense. That's subjectiity :-) In refernce to the above passage, I can see to how policing a reversal from pure expansionism (suicide) to sustainability and clean environment (livelyhood) would be likened to taking us from guns to no-guns overnight. it's impossible when looked at like that. But I cannot think of anything else. I want to build a R & D facilities that espouse the concept of ingenuity and sustainability (not at the cost of the earth OR technology, but rather, in harmony with the needs of both) ideally they should dictate their own needs, but we as are politically and physically blinded to the gaia principle. Harmony is in my opinion the most undernourished and ill-rated concept or reality today. I know one day that we hsall HAVE to adopt harmonic principles. The only way i can see this is via education and example. he only way I see it happening any time soon is, er, er.. ;-)
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 20:49
|
||
|
apologies for bad typing, i blame my tools and lack of time. busybusybusybusyarghy. Thanks for response Stray, is good to have you back dude.
|
|||
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 21:37
|
||
|
The problem with all these utopian ideas is how to implement them. How are you going to dissolve all national borders . . . . without launching the mother-of-all-wars? How many millions (billions?) would have to die? I don't think you'd find one nation on earth where the majority would be willing to give up their national sovereignty, especially to turn it over to some sort of "one world government." I mean you think the US fed govt is big and scary . . . imagine a govt 10 times that size . . . saying "the state will whither away" is just wishful thinking. It will take an army of bureaucrats to implement any of these policies for regulating economics & the environment. Frankly I don't trust govts -- the last thing I want to see is a "global" govt. I'd rather devolve things down to the local level -- which means a lot of localities aren't going to see it "your" way and there won't be any global coordination on these issues. I guess the bottom line is "the state" is here to stay in some form or another. So smaller would be better . . . which means nobody would get to decide any kind of "global" policy.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:01
|
||
|
When I said 'one rule', I meant, as I stated: the rule of respect. This can only come from education, and can only be enforced by clear arguments and actual law. I don't support global government, I support global concerns, and that means having NGO's that MONITOR trade, pollution and human rights. It's already there, in small systems, in infancy, it just hasn't been globally recognised as imperative. Nothing will happen tomorrow, but we have to keep awakening to the issues, and spreading the word, a trickle is not enough. Compassion in farming needs to be legalised, not be a consumer option, as does fair trade. Equal legal representation is another goal worth fighting for. Everything is a matter of time, but I worry that fascistic capitalism can set us back centuries, unless we make the first moves now. If we accept violence to ourselves and the planet, how can we be excused from the effects? As for no borders, that's a pipe dream yes, but it could become a common one, in time. I'm not sorry for appearing naive, I actually hold it as a strength, it's the only thing that keeps me discussing effectiveley and constantly challenging :-) |
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:17
|
||
|
You clueless fuckin hippy ;) I support what you want, what I was trying to say (albeit badly) that any attempt to move in such a direction results in a whole heap of anti-freedom dictatorial lunacy. Sure the end result may sound lovely and cosy, but getting there will be brutal, violent and divisve. Pretty much like all hippy-type or enviromentalist led politic. It ends up internalising and eating itself just like identity politics do. It gets ugly fast. NO, I'm not saying I support anybodys right to exploit the enviroment or people, that would be silly. What I'm saying is threatening the current powerbase and system with regulation will not work, you have to completely destroy the powerbase first. If you don't it will kill you as soon as you look like being a serious threat. In order to defend yourself your politic has to alter, internalise, and then starts judging itself and those that subscribe to it start blaming others that subscribe to it. The enviromental exploitation is not the issue, its a symptom of the wrong approach that we take. Diddling with things to improve how people behave without completely destroying every aspect of the current world economic system is futile. Honestly, I don't think we'd be better off all going to back to using horses and living off the land in a groovy gaia friendly way. But then, I was never a fan of Pol Pot ;) Actually he's a good example of the natural conclusion of that politic. As Joe Strummer said 'I don't belive in a socialism where we all wear boiler suits and drive Yugos. I believe in a socialism where we all drive BMW's wear Armani and Rolexs'. Technology may actually get us out of our evil earth raping ways by developing alternatives, it also may not. Whatever, attacking the individual or individual corporations or even attempting to police their actions would as I said get very ugly very fast. I strongly question the ethics of what you sugges.t I mean, this non-governmental strike force you describe, do we vote for em ? How can we get rid of the bad apples ? etc, etc. If we're all going to hell in a hand basket, as many envirometal doomsayers suggest, then I want a front seat to watch the fireballs. Gimme popcorn and a hotdog made out of goats genitals. There is no other choice for me that doesn't lead to trampling on my own ethics and the importance I invest in any individuals soul. I also reckon we will naturally evolve into smaller communities, a sorta friendly feudalism is on it's way. It'll be just as fucked up as the way we are now, but fuck it, it'll be different.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
