Cuba cant even repair all the broken water lines and sewage
on the streets . No food . China is smogger than America ever was . North Korea is in the dark at night yet the liberals say this is a Utopia
I think that is the standard that many enviros are using and learning. IT is a losing strategy and a stupid strategy. All of their "solutions" are not solutions at all but large gov't intervention.
Currently they can get away with this for some of the people who do not feel or do not notice the large taxation we currently face. Many people simply do not notice, because they are unaware the impact of taxes and regulations on the prices they pay for everything. They remain blissfully unaware. But the more taxation and the more gov't red tape placed upon everything, the higher costs run and people are going to notice when they can barely afford to feed themselves or they are having to wait in long lines at the grocery stores, as the communistic type of rule caused in the USSR.
Bottom line, the more taxation they try to impose, the more pushback they are going ot get from the people. It is a losing strategy. They know very well that the cap and trade will reduce CO2 emissions, but not nearly eliminate them. And that is just one environmental issue.
Many of the liberals here are ignorant of whythey are seeing so much pushback. They pretend that sceince is on their side, and pretend it is the ignorance of their opponents. Science does not back the outrageous claims they make. Further, being against raising taxes is not a new thing or a stupid thing. I do not hesitate to say that if the founding fathers were taxed as we are, they probably would have already overthrown this government. Taxation limits freedom, so you want to limit taxation to the point of doing solely what you need to do to protect the freedoms of the people.
Interesting discussion on the topic:
http://shesright.org/2009/07/19/governme...
One thing of interest is how both sides whine about their freedoms, yet both sides are more than willing to restrict the freedoms of their opponents.
One may note that my stance on gay marriage is not just that gay marriage should be allowed, but that the govt does not have a right to even marry people. It should be noted that people in the past would get married by their religious leader, or in front of their community or in even some communities just state that they are now married. Marriage is something that is inherently ONLY a bond between the two people getting married in front of the people and/or religious entity.
It has become customary to assume that the gov't has a say in it, when they should have never been granted a say. As with many things, the gov't sticks its nose in something and proceeds until it is generally accepted. But without a gov't, people would still be getting married. Generally we do not protest too much, because the gov't only slightly limits our ability to marry for the 90% who are heterosexual, but for those who are homosexual, the gov't burden is tremendous. But the point of the matter still remains. Why does the gov't have the power in the first place?
All of these people should consider the old Chinese model for gov't. Dynasties were overthrown when the government became too burdensome for the people. Democracy (or republic) is no different and is as susceptible to being overthrown. The US was not the first republic. The length of time we last, is how long we keep our government from becoming overly burdensome. And there are very few cases of overthrows without MANY deaths. We need to think very carefully before expanding the power of the govt.
Capitalism was Marx and Lenin's derogatory term for the free enterprise or entrepreneurial system.
"Question: What happened to the environment the last time people with radically anti-capitalist views had access to real power?
Under a system that imposed heavy government regimentation upon the economy, direct government ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy (and the commanded heights, too), a socialist vision of property, etc., the environmental results were nothing short of catastrophic. Setting aside the direct human costs of socialist environmental policy in the twentieth century ― the famines, the deformations, the horrific birth defects ― socialism was a disaster from the purely environmental point of view, too..."
Capitalism is not the sole source of danger to our environment. If planned carefully capitalism and environmental responsibility can co-exist. A lot of problems are caused by the average citizen. There are close to 7 billion humans living on this planet. If each of us were to use only one gallon less of water each day, in one week that is 49 billion gallons saved, 2.55 trillion gallons a year. There are a few things we take for granted that if our habits were changed it would go a long way towards saving our environment. How many gallons of water do we waste just waiting the hot water to reach our shower head? How many men turn on the water and let it run while they shave? The waste in electricity alone could drop pollution by a huge amount. We can regulate factories and corporations and energy plants to reduce waste and pollutants, but we can't regulate human behavior.
It makes me very uncomfortable, I am a reasonable person, who doesn't believe in controversy theories, but I don't know, there this great push towards totalitarianism and it has me worried.
I see the rise of beaurocracies, the EU, the UN the major ones, but also beaurocracies like the EPA all using climate change as a means of attaining greater power and control.
I worry that democracy is losing the fight, and could overwhelmed.
Capitalism is freedom, unless you're a liberal. Then we're all being forced to consume because we have no control of our own actions.
Liberals, here's a news flash for you, capitalism is fueled by consumers, stop consuming what you believe is "bad" and you'll force the change you want.
Exactly - Just compare the US with non capitalist countries like China or India. Who has the cleaner environment? Makes you wonder why these environmentalists just don't get it.
*Unrestrained* capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained almost anything else. Take a look at the Gilded Age, if you want an immediate and obvious example.
So, if we're going to deal appropriately with global warming, we, well, have to not treat capitalism as some sort of sacred cow that can't be touched in any way. That doesn't mean capitalism is evil and should be abolished, just that "That would hurt capitalism" is... not a sufficient charge in and of itself to prevent an otherwise good course of action from being a good idea.
You mean they aren't? I think they are very smug about the success of their lies. They have the willing press and organizations like Y!A and their dirty playing stooges to amplify the drumbeat of anti-capitalism. Of course they are being supported by capitalist money from Soros and like ilk. I think Naomi is seeing the crumbling of their paper ivory tower and is getting panicky. You can alway tell when the greenies are losing, they always jack up the rhetoric and getting downright nasty. .
If it wasn't for Capitalism, do-nothing Hippies like Klein would be dumpster-diving for dinner.
Man-made Global Warming activist Naomi Klein says: ‘Climate activists have to get comfortable attacking capitalism’
http://twitchy.com/2014/10/09/naomi-klein-climate-activists-have-to-get-comfortable-attacking-capitalism/
Maybe not attack. Maybe hold back some of the excess, that would have to be paid for by the rest of society.
The EPA does exactly that.
The problem that exists is that we really don't hold corporations responsible for all the harm that they do. If doing that is "attacking capitalism" then so be it.
Ok
