The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy

[Hababi]

(or as Jonah Goldberg calls it, liberal fascism):
"Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . .
There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. . .

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions."

That's from the authors.

Book page:
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C34504.aspx

So, your thoughts?

[guitrguy]

So they are saying we should force the cutting of emissions regardless of popular opinion?

[Hababi]

You say 'we', but basically they mean, so far as I can tell, that there really shouldn't be a 'we' as we know it. Rather, them, setting policies without a democratic process for selection/approval.

[1338 h4x0r]

I simply do not believe in totalitarianism of any kind.

Maybe we ****ed up, bro

[guitrguy]

I voted the second option

[jaredong]

sometimes i dont think that democracy necessarily means the right thing to do. The whole world thought that racism was ok in the past, it didn't mean it was the right choice.

havent read the book, however from the review i think the argument is "which would you choose, liberty or life?". Course, you could go "give me freedom or give me death", but dying definitely cuts your freedoms down doesn't it.

i dont think they're advocating absolute authoritarianism, maybe just having the power to pass environmental laws without being blocked? Really, i dont see the problem with a government enforcing laws that curb some freedom for the better of everyone.

Are road speed laws curbing the freedom of the driver to drive at whatever speed he wants to? Are pollution laws curbing the freedom of industries to release what they like in the air?

the people they want to put into power arent politicians who are in it for the fame/money/power. Rather, its like in Plato's republic where they would put those who *dont* want to rule but have the best knowledge in the matters to make decisions. Scientists and specialists of all kinds. I dont think they would be gunning for a scientist president though again, i havent read the book.

when theres a huge crisis, shouldnt the government have intervene to help everyone? when theres a disaster shouldnt the government have the ability to cut through bureaucracy to deal with the problem as soon as possible? i know its a fuzzy topic and that yes, there should be a limited government most of the time.

however, dont we also admire those who by pass proper channels to do the right thing although everyone else might not like it? Batman gets the job done. Superman on the other hand follows the law and lex luthor kicks his butt. Because of politics, nobody could just kill Doctor Doom because hes a politican, yet hes a huge threat to the world.

[Independent_CA]

Much of the energy/global warming issue could be solved by stifling the influence of a relatively small group of corporate lackeys and the politicians and public officials on their payroll. Americans and everyone else would consume alternate energy if it was actually available and affordable.

[ringworm]

i just wish people would dictate a need for radical change instead of looking upward at ineffective leaders for guidance.

We have the capability to extend our intelligence and ideas for good solutions to all around us, but we sit and wait like children for others to do it for us.

Its like someone said in here awhile back, if the people in the US had to pay 7 bucks for a gallon of gas years ago, we'd all be driving eco-friendly, non-polluting cars today.

[Smokey D]

True, but to ensure that price, you have to set the appropriate tax, and the US is notoriously hostile to raising taxes, even where it could lead to a positive result.

As a Ron Paul fan, this sort of thinking should be right up your alley.

[McP3000]

True, but to ensure that price, you have to set the appropriate tax, and the US is notoriously hostile to raising taxes, even where it could lead to a positive result.

As a Ron Paul fan, this sort of thinking should be right up your alley.
um

It depends what taxes you're talking about. Product taxes and income taxes are different things.

[Smokey D]

Libertarians hate all taxes...

[ringworm]

lol, I know my support of Paul sends conflicting signals sometimes

most of my fever for taxes would be negated if we didnt spend all of what we dont have on the already dominant military force we have.

while, at this precise moment, I do oppose a tax hike without reform in other areas that could equalize the need for an increase, i am also able to see that higher taxes eventually leads to better qualities for everyone in a trickle-UP effect.

[McP3000]

Libertarians hate all taxes...
yeah

but ya know

some are necessary

while, at this precise moment, I do oppose a tax hike without reform in other areas that could equalize the need for an increase, i am also able to see that higher taxes eventually leads to better qualities for everyone in a trickle-UP effect.
trickle-up?
That's like a bad version of a bad idea

[guitrguy]

Do you hate poor people?

[ringworm]

trickle-up?
That's like a bad version of a bad idea
:p

well, at least to my limited knowledge in economics etc, it would seem the less poverty you have beneath whatever class you reside in, the less likely you would be poor as well?

the more they make, the more you make?

this could be way off, but it just seems like a rational concept?

[Smokey D]

Up to a point. There is only so much real wealth in an economy at a time.

It's true that poor people tend to spend the money they receive, while rich people are more inclined to save it.

[McP3000]

Do you hate poor people?
No...what?
Stop putting words in my mouth.

Up to a point. There is only so much real wealth in an economy at a time.

It's true that poor people tend to spend the money they receive, while rich people are more inclined to save it.
I know, you think it would be the other way around.
However, rich people spend a lot more when they do spend it.

it pretty much evens out.

[guitrguy]

No...what?
Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why are you so opposed to making conditions better for them?

[McP3000]

Then why are you so opposed to making conditions better for them?
I'm not...
what are you talking about

stop with the word play

[guitrguy]

Mr. President, my *** hasn't been wiped in a few days. Please send a government employee to do so immediatly.

What does this mean then?

[Reaganista]

dictatorship of scientists is a terrible idea

instead i propose that philosophers should be kings

lol

[VomitStainedCretin]

Dictatorship should be determined by a weekly lottery controlled by an artificially intelligent supercomputer.

[Reaganista]

no that would be horrendous

[Knifeboy]

you wouldn't think that if you won

[McP3000]

What does this mean then?
it means that since i cant do things for myself the government should create a program to do it for me

[McP3000]

no that would be horrendous
anyway, i saw one of the girls in your avatar. One of my friends went to the grammys this weekend and he got a picture with Taylor Swift.

Jealous much?

[Reaganista]

not really

[totah]

To thread topic:

Tackling climate change is easy. It simply needs a massive reduction in industry (especially oil-consuming industry), decentralisation of everything, switch to small-scale renewable power sources (ie. wind and solar power decentralised to each village/town/house, no large-scale windfarms to feed into the national grid), and the death of market capitalism.

[McP3000]

not really

n|m

[Knifeboy]

why are you holding up your left ring finger?...

Nice finger independence though

[McP3000]

why are you holding up your left ring finger?...

Nice finger independence though

m|n

[Knifeboy]

Wow, you can do it with both hands?

[Det_Nosnip]

(or as Jonah Goldberg calls it, liberal fascism):


Aha! So THAT is what is wrong with you! You read Jonah Goldberg!! :lol:

Very rarely have I ever seen a person more full of **** reaching stupider conclusions by shoddier evidence. That man is a walking non sequitur.

Anyways, as far as this thread goes...sorta reminds me of the terrorism debate. In order to avoid hypocrisy, I can only go with the arguement that these guys are out of their minds, albeit well intentioned.

[totah]

What hypocrisy?

[toxicmudd]

The problem with democracy is that it relies on votes by people who are largely uninformed, and vote for purely selfish, greedy reasons. People vote fpr what would affect them, not voting for the sake of others. Social policy reform has won few elections. For instance i would vote conservative because i have money and don't want to give it away, making my current life easier, despite the fact that my political views are largely liberal. And a conservative is unlikely to go, 'you know what, lets actually change something!'
So yes, we do need someone or something pushing through vital policies such as climate change.

[VomitStainedCretin]

The problem with democracy is that it relies on votes by people who are largely uninformed, and vote for purely selfish, greedy reasons. People vote fpr what would affect them, not voting for the sake of othersYou forget those who vote purely instinctively, or if they think one candidates more attractive or has better taste in suits, or get caught up in a mass movement all their friends are in, or purely because they feel a 'duty' to use their freedom to choose yet don't have any idea what the candidates stand for.

[Smokey D]

Actually, he forgets that if everyone voted purely for themselves, then the majority would get what suited them the best and that's what democracy is all about.