I’ve been thinking about the line in Star Trek where Picard is talking about why humans use to go to war. Paraphrasing but he basically talks about religion, resources, and believe it or not economic systems.
LIBERALS!
Star Trek never made sense in that once you have a replicator no economy could exist.
You liberals just crack me up. WTF do you think “means of production” means?
All it would take to impose capitalism is to privatize the replicators. That’s what capitalism is.
Anyways, we better x-nay on the Star Trek because @ cuserounder will be mad. He doesn’t like SciFy it seems.
You mean like Pelosi and Schumer and Biden? they probably have like 76-99% faith.
Avoid the end of humanity? 90%. Avoid mass catastrophe well beyond the current scale of it? 40-60%.
No, I’m just guessing. They don’t seem too worried, but I think they’re overconfident.
I mean the issue is I don’t have faith they’ll really put their efforts into it. If they did I’d say 99%. My lack of faith is a lack of faith in them to actually put full effort in.
I don’t know enough about historical attempts to regulate for the environment so I’m ill informed to comment. Obviously we made some level of progress in the 70s but we need to do way, way better.
Most of our farthest left members here seem to be very all or nothing.
Let’s say I grant you this. So what? What are you proposing instead?
“A system without absentee ownership” is not magically a solution to climate change. People are going to need to produce energy.
I thought we were done with people rolling their eyes and pronouncing us dumbasses for not being on board with something existing only in their heads after the great ACist defeat of the late 2000s.
1 Like
I wasn’t around for the great ACist defeat so I’m not really getting the reference.
Well, I’m always referencing IRL activists in my mind… not ~7 ex-poker players here. But regardless, I think you are just misunderstanding what is being said. Grab a quote of this “all or nothing”, and I’ll explain.
But let’s chat a little bit about your comments in general.
- Why do you imagine that those relatively more to the right are less likely to “all or nothing” than those relatively more to the left. To me, all/nothing-ness seems to be completely unrelated to left/right-ness.
How do you figure they have any connection at all?
You are a professional gambler, and I used to be. Do you find this all/nothing correlation with left/right holds at the poker table? My experience at the sports book is “lol no”.
- Regarding your use of the word ‘pragmatic’… according to this source, synonyms are businesslike, down-to-earth, efficient, hardheaded, logical, practical, realistic, sober. utilitarian. commonsensical. hard. hard-boiled, matter-of-fact, unidealistic. While antonyms are excited, impractical, irrational, unrealistic, unreasonable, idealistic.
Sounds to me you are saying the more to right you are the smarter you are.
Edit: fixed link.
2+2 Politics circa, idk, like 2006-2009 consisted entirely of Borodog, pvn, Nielsio, tomdemaine and assorted other annoying people explaining their mind palaces of how an ACist utopia would work. Eventually Borodog and Nielsio moved on to other things and we converted pvn and tomdemaine to liberalism/leftism. I think it was just that pvn and tomdemaine got older and wiser though, I’m not sure we actually won any arguments. It’s impossible to argue on behalf of a flawed reality against a perfect idea which doesn’t actually exist. Sabo has the same smug tone of the ideologue here, again arguing on behalf of some system which exists only in his head, I have no idea what it even is.
There’s an annoying trend on the forum at the moment to pronounce all reform of capitalism impossible, despite the existence of social democracies which have tamed it to an extent, while just assuming that a socialist system would not merely succeed but, as a certainty of its existence, implement exactly the policies which the poster would want implemented. In reality there’s nothing about non-capitalist systems which guarantees better environmental performance. I brought up the Soviet Union because Soviet socialists thought environmentalism was a bourgeois concern.
6 Likes
This is a thread about climate change? I assume you’re arguing that some non-capitalist system is a solution to climate change. If you’re not, I have no idea why you’re here.
Edit: I mean the thread is about climate change and the environment, sub in “environmental problems” in the above paragraph instead if you like.
I just tracked up. Why was this conversation even brought here? I’m very confused.
LOL no. I’m arguing that capitalism will end life on earth. Nothing more.
Not sure what ‘grauble’ means, but sure. That’s true. It’s still lucky.
I just pictured a libertarian saying that and grauble grauble is something I say in real life to mock a stupid argument.
Edit: I’m high and really just entertaining myself.
Edit again: I agree with you and I was mocking the libertarian who would say “but capitalism grauble grauble grauble…” in case that wasn’t clear.
1 Like
@ microbet must be tired if he didn’t get that you were entertaining yourself (while high).
2 Likes
The hilarious thing is that @ ChrisV playing the ACer side in this thread.
We’d point out ACism was self-contradictory gibberish. They’d whine we must defend ‘statist-ism’ so as to have a ‘debate’.
We point out that capitalism is by nature unsustainable. @ ChrisV is whining that I’m not giving him some imaginary Marxist utopia so as to have a ‘debate’.
The truth value of (ACism is gibberish) or (capitalism isn’t sustainable) are stand alone Qs.
I think you have plenty of knowledge. Regulation before the 1970s created the 1970s. Regulation after the 1970s created today. The proof is in the pudding.
The point is that ‘well regulation’ has it’s never been sustainable, not for an instant, not ever. It’s never worked in the past, it’s not working now… why would you imagine something literally magical is going to happen in the future so that all of a sudden it starts working?
I mean I’m done here because I don’t even know why this conversation is happening here (every other thread on the forum is for capitalism vs other things debates) but that analogy is gibberish. When ACists demanded that we defend statism they were talking about the system prevailing in the real world; ACism was the imaginary utopia. Here capitalism actually exists and whatever the hell you’re proposing instead, which is still unclear to me, is the imaginary utopia.
Here is a bit of my post I have bolded to emphasise that I am very smart and my words are of great importance.
1 Like