Hi Dawie Thankyou, some good points, but overall I think Robert gets closer to it, as does Naomi Klein.
First, though I do like the anarchist view that the only good government is a dead government, anything and everything that comes from government isn't necessarily authoritarian. You're not saying, are you, that government has no positive role to play? Coercion is sometimes required in this perfect/less-than-perfect world. For instance, as in recent discussions, there's another 1% (also less than 1% I think), comprising the sociopathic element, a tiny minority that's capable of wreaking great harm, if allowed to. There's also the troubling matter of what happens at the interface between the haves and have-nots in a world which (a) is richer than ever before, with more than enough money and food for everyone, and (b) has arguably never before been so grossly inequitable, with at least 1 in 3 humans living in poverty, and one child dying of hunger every three seconds. It's troubling, apart from all that, because if for instance you've just been mugged it's a little difficult to regard the mugger as the victim, and because the law (government coercion) deals with it by simply adding one wrong to another and dressing it up as a right. And so on. But what's the alternative, short of the systemic change we all know is required? And that change too will probably require government coercion. Vee haf our vays to force you to be free. :-) Re this: >Absent from the usual debate is two very important elements: the >cultivation of needs through systemic manipulation; I don't think it's absent, certainly not here, and, as I said: >... its grip isn't as deep and total as they like to think it is, or >how would you explain Occupy Wall Street, for instance. It's not as invisible as they like to think it is either. >and the need, in mass-production-based systems, to repeat every >little spark of creativity millions of times. These, and nothing >like individual greed, are the drivers of overproduction. I fully agree. >And conventional environmental regulatory responses reinforce these >factors very effectively. How so? Would you propose they be scrapped? To be replaced by what? All best Keith >Robert, I disagree with you. While I certainly don't see a solution >in a continuation of the status quo, I do not believe that a >solution that is based on authoritarian austerity is sustainable. I >do not believe that it ought to be sustainable: I do not believe the >human spirit ought to be that fragile. I lament that it very often >is. > >My entire engagement with the environmental movement is to find a >solution that will if anything expand our personal liberty. I began >with a vague sense of contradiction in many environmental regulatory >practices, and that has led to a thoroughgoing analysis over many >years. Now I sit with the result, and it alienates elements of both >sides of the debate. But I cannot deny that my primary interest is >anti-authoritarian. I believe that we were created to exercise >creative liberty (any artist will have an inkling, however hazy, how >that makes utter sense of Divine Creation). In those terms, by >stripping life of the potential of fulfilling its ultimate purpose >coercion is nothing less than murder. When coercion is the norm the >only creative opportunities lie in dissent; and where that is not >allowed they lie, paradoxically, in violence. But I do not believe >that that is where we are. I believe there are other solutions. I >hope, for the sake of those dear to > me, that I never stop believing that there are other solutions. The >alternative is Samson's, in the palace. > >Absent from the usual debate is two very important elements: the >cultivation of needs through systemic manipulation; and the need, in >mass-production-based systems, to repeat every little spark of >creativity millions of times. These, and nothing like individual >greed, are the drivers of overproduction. And conventional >environmental regulatory responses reinforce these factors very >effectively. > >The scale of the thing isn't clear. The proportional disposition >between what people do out of heart's desire and what people do out >of artificially-induced contingent need is mind-boggling. It makes >no sense at all to disallow the former, as it doesn't even begin to >be enough to compensate for the latter. It does not scratch the >surface. All such a prohibition would do is make unhappy people >unhappier (I use the term in the proper sense, i.e. "in an >unfortunate situation".) And it does. > >Likewise, the amount of production in response to artificial >measures to create demand, or even despite a lack of demand, simply >to meet threshold volumes is out of all proportion to anything >people make because they want to see the thing made. Do we disallow >the individual effort, directly or through tangles of red tape, so >that the mass-producer might produce EVEN MORE? We are doing exactly >that. The mechanism by which centrality of control tends to >cultivate increases in production volume is barely discerned, never >mind understood. > >Producing 90% less doesn't mean having 90% less. That needs to be >understood. There is a disparity between production and consumption, >and another between consumption and possession. The common >understanding that desire drives consumption drives production is >erroneous: the system of production won't work on that basis. >Threshold volume is the fix, and everything else has to be arranged >to ensure that it is safely exceeded. Shifting product is something >the system needs to do, and what it "wants" is to keep moving to >higher threshold volumes which require it to shift even more >product. That is why the system is an ecological disaster, and why >imposing "carefulness" on it just makes it worse. > >Indeed, we need to change how we do business, but to "on a smaller >scale, with a smaller ambit and a shorter reach" rather than "more >carefully". We need to produce less - far less - for any given >amount of creativity. The fun:volume ratio is completely wrong. It >is unbelievable how wrong it is, and it needs to be put right. And >yes, the State is best positioned to undo its own damage, and >restructure physical and practical systems to allow us to satisfy >our needs more directly, if one can ever get the State to do >anything that will thus reduce its subsequent indispensibility. And >if that ever happens the State can finally just fade into the mist. > >None of this is about "giving up rights". In fact it is about >regaining rights and liberties that are being lost to the >corporations. > >Because these ideas are not part of the usual debate, because people >have not had the opportunity to mull them over, they are not widely >understood. Hence they are not part of the conventional solutions. I >am not prophecying that the conventional solutions will not work; I >am observing that they have not worked. They have in each case >resulted simply in a mushrooming scope and volume of the thing >thought problematic. The catalytic converter is a traffic generator. >In that, GM succeeded in their design objective. That is why I have >never owned one, and never shall. > >Best regards and Advent greetings > >Dawie Coetzee > > >>________________________________ >> From: robert and benita rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >>Sent: Monday, 12 December 2011, 20:28 >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Capitalism vs. the Climate - Naomi Klein >> >>On 12/11/2011 10:23 PM, Dawie Coetzee wrote: >>> Actually the ideological error of the American right is small and >>>rather fine. > It is centred upon a confusion of personal and corporate rights; >and again it plays into corporate hands - from two sides. >> >> I'm not confident that's true. Naomi Klein's thesis focuses on the >>fact that "The American Way of Life" is fundamentally threatened by the >>necessary steps required to address climate change. We will have to >>give up our "right" to drive around as single occupants of two ton >>machines. We will have to change the way we do business, which means an >>end to consumerism, industrialized farming and many other aspects of >>"American Life" that we've discussed in this forum before. We will have > >to learn to make do with a LOT less than we have now. We won't be able >>to leave our lights on, crank the AC when it's hot, or turn up the heat >>when it's cold. We'll have to give up our freeways, our billion dollar >>football stadiums, our flat-screen > televisions in every bedroom and the >>abundance of "stuff" (which we really don't need) in our stores. If we >>give up those things, what's going to happen to our cozy little lives? >>We're going to get dragged down so the rest of the world can rise up, right? >> >> In that case, the issues at stake are not about corporate rights at >>all. They're not about science. They're not about what's moral, >>either. They're about me having to give up what I have, so that people >>"who haven't worked as hard as I have" will benefit. My strong sense of >>individual entitlement demands that I have a RIGHT to the fruit of my >>labor. Then, my racism rears its ugly head, and pretty soon you'll hear >>me spouting vitriol mixed with nationalism that sounds every bit as >>strident as the segregationist rhetoric of George Wallace, or worse . . >>. (Ok, I wouldn't do that, but I know > many who do!) >> >> This leads to an important question that very few people in my >>country wish to discuss. I've asked my sister, who is a stock broker, >>about an alternative economic system that can replace the broken one we >>have. She and most conservatives insist that there isn't one. The ONLY >>options available to us are either unfettered capitalism, or socialism / >>communism. Once you begin to propose public transportation and >>densified housing as a means of reducing carbon emissions, immediately >>you will run up against a strong aversion to being told what to do and > >how to live. We Americans like our freedom, and we don't want anyone to >>tell us how we ought to live. (Strangely, the folks that recoil in >>horror at the thought of being forced onto a trolley car with other >>people are often the same ones who have no compunction about imposing >>their morality > on everyone else, but that's a different discussion . . .) >> >> As Naomi Klein explains, only governments are large enough and >>powerful enough to compel compliance with the changes that are necessary >>to combat global climate change. She is correct to point out that >>progressives avoid discussing the reality that "market solutions" will >>not suffice, because the moment a legislative solution is proposed, >>everyone understands that the extremist conservatives simply stop >>talking and start obstructing. It's easier to deny climate change when >>doing so nicely plays into a host of other a-priori assumptions about >>reality that include--but are not limited to--fears of big government, >>hand-wringing over the New World Order and the appearance of the >>antichrist, jingoism, racism, American exceptionalism, economic anxiety >>and the widespread belief that "anyone can make it" in > America. While >>much of this is mythical and the real villains stoke these fears from >>the sidelines, I believe that my countrymen are being cleverly >>manipulated by an overwhelming flood of propaganda funded by interests >>who would like to see the status quo maintained. >> >>> >>> The widespread and erroneous belief that personal liberty and the >>>health of the environment are mutually incompatableis a phenomenon >>>advantageous to the corporations. >> >> But it isn't a false belief. My father-in-law was discussing this >>with me a few weeks ago. He said, "Thirty years ago, we didn't worry >>about asbestos. Now, businesses and people have to PAY to get that >>stuff removed. Those are costs we didn't have back then." >> >> I explained that this isn't true. I tried to outline how the costs >>were borne by individuals and the larger society, and that the problem >>of socializing costs is the issue that's being addressed by >>environmental legislation, but that makes no sense to him. All he sees >>is an additional and unnecessary burden for business, which stifles >>"growth," reduces profit and nets no gain for working people. He's not >>alone in this. It's a widespread perception. > > >> Don't get me started on the Enbridge and XL pipelines . . . The >>"jobs vs. environment" arguments are alive and well in those situations. >>> Firstly it tends to promote the sort of regulatory response >>>that the corporations like, i.e. the sort that outlaws potential >>>and actual competition to themselves. Secondly, by confusing >>>personal and corporate rights the interests of the latter are made >>>to resonate with the Jeffersonian tradition which, but for this >>>imposed confusion, represents to my mind a salutary stance. The >>>support thereby generated for the corporate cause > is for the most part neither here nor there. Much more important is >the clumsy and artificial polarity induced between the Jeffersonian >impulse and the popular left: for an alliance there would be >disastrous to corporate interests. >> >> I agree with you with respect to the latter statement. Such an >>alliance WOULD be disastrous to corporate interests. However, Naomi >>Klein rightly points out that reduction in carbon emissions necessitates >>a change in lifestyle. The only entity large enough to enforce edicts >>of that kind are governments, and in my country, government is seen as >>the problem, not the solution. >> >> >>Robert Luis Rabello >>Adventure for Your Mind >>http://www.newadventure.ca >> >>Meet the People video: >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c >> >>Crisis video: >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 >> >>The Long Journey video: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
