How about the loss of habitat and species, rampant pollution including radioactive contamination of the vast Pacific Ocean, massive red tides caused by agricultural runoff, e-coli produce from fecal contamination by industrial livestock practices, and the like? Focusing on just AGW seems a bit shortsighted as far as the big picture goes.

Thanks, I’m honored.

Some good points there. I think it would be good for everyone to read the history of Pol Pot [ [history.com] ] to see the results than can occur if someone takes communism and enforcing economic equality seriously.

You say there is no such thing as capitalism, which, depending on what you mean may be true. There certainly is no nation that is fully capitalist, most are mixed economies, with a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

@sfvpool

Maybe it comes down to semantics. The word “capitalism” has come to be synonymous with the free market, and especially big business. Part of my point is that the label is misleading and irrational because production under any system has to have capital. For production you generally need labor but we don’t speak of laborism. We never say “managementism”. If everyone defines capitalism as the free market then we have to use that word but IMO it is a very poor label.

Specifically, a free market economy is not the opposite of socialism. Even though socialist policies might sometimes infringe on free trade they need not.

@WilliamFleming I think of Capitalism as a system in which the ownership of the means of production are private, whereas in Socialism, the community at large (the government) owns the means of production. I think a better definition of Capitalism would also include the rule of law to protect rights, including property.

@sfvpool There's critiques of libertarianism deal with some of the inherent contradictions. Contrasting the doctrines against use of force by the state, though allowing for such when your property/well-being is endangered, particularly when "private property" itself arose from the power of the state taken control of what was once viewed as "the commons." This was done by the imposition of a great deal of force, by enforcers buying into/bought by the system with a few pieces of silver, status bestowed, or at least a means of avoiding the bottom of the heap. Many these days operate in the manner of kapo.

@WilliamCharles Yes, I've read many critiques of Capitalism (I'm not a Libertarian) and they haven't convinced me of their merit. Read some of John Locke, who explains how the "commons" became private property and the justice of it.

@sfvpool - There's a line in the movie "The New World" where they're discussing their annoyance with the indigenous tribe resenting their encroachment. A crewmember shouts, "God wants those who will exploit the land to have it!"

The more things change...

"A more extensive discussion of Locke is justified because of his enormous influence on the theory of private property defended by many modern libertarians. Indeed, despite some problems in Locke’s account, he may be dubbed the father of the modern libertarian view of private property."

[libertarianism.org]

@WilliamCharles And your point?

@sfvpool - you recommended Locke, state you're not a libertarian, and say he has views on private property and the commons somewhat in line with yours. This is what turned up on a quick search. The concept that caught me eye, and the reason I provided the movie quote, is that there's a presumption that land left as is almost defaults to those choosing to exploit it (develop it, work it, whatever).

I also noticed in the link provided is that the assent of those previously making use of the commons was not required. It seems only when so-called title is transferred to an individual that the right to the real estate becomes established.

As I don't know what your views are specifically, my comments might seem scattershot, but I'm at least trying to keep on topic. Rather than play some of 20 questions on your views, I'll just continue to provide links and commentary I feel buttresses my own points, and those in the link originally provided for the thread.

I think it is pretty apparent that the author's point are established by the state of the world. Robber barons have no concerns other than their own enrichment (measured in money and power), so that the harm they do is an externality they can pretty much ignore, at least until that time it spills over into their own reality. The fostering of a toxic environment, endless war and suffering (usually in the service of various economic interests despite the altruistic claims), global economic chaos (which provides the conditions for those with means to capitalize upon), etc., has afforded a select few with enormous gains, but those years of plunder may be coming to a head. Again, those with means often have a contingency plan, but it is to be seen if they can actually escape the collapse they helped bring about.

Feel free to share your own views, or not. Our history is one of plunder, based on the time honored notion of might makes right.

I think author Joseph Heller summed it up perfectly in a quote from a cable show called the Great Books series. He said, "Catch-22 means that people have the right to do to you anything which you cannot prevent them from doing to you." I choose to join with others hoping to prevent the decidedly Machiavellian from running roughshod over everyone and everything else. Don't know where you're headed, and really don't care, until that time you become either an antagonist or an ally.

@WilliamCharles Sorry for the late response. I've been very busy...

Thank you for explaining what you meant. When I stated that I'm not a Libertarian, I meant that I'm not a capital 'L' Libertarian (a member of the Libertarian political party), though some would describe my viewpoint as being libertarian (small 'l'. The Libertarian political party encompasses many views, including anarchism, which I think are antithetical to liberty. I think government is a necessary good. Necessary for, and only for, the protection of individual rights, including property rights.

We could argue about the practicality of capitalism, but history proves that it works, if human life is your standard of vlaue. Throughout human history, most people -- somewhere above 95% of people -- lived in extreme poverty. Since capitalism, for every nation that has practiced it, to the extent that it is practiced, there is an inversion -- most people don't live in extreme poverty. In the U.S., the poorest are richer than the rich were before capitalism. It is not an accident.

But, there is no nation today practicing pure capitalism, and there never was. Today most nations have mixed economies -- some capitalism and some socialism. The USA started out being mostly capitalist and because of that became the most prosperous nation on earth.

I don't buy into the propaganda about "Robber Barons." Have you read biographies of the industrialists in the nineteenth century? They were great men who built this country and everyone benefited by their genius.

Capitalism doesn't cause wars, statism does. The last thing a capitalist wants is war -- a lose-lose battle. A capitalist wants to trade and make a profit. The two world wars were not caused by capitalism, but by those who opposed it and bought into the Marxist ideas of socialism, communism and fascism. Other wars, like Vietnam, the Korean War, and Iraq were not caused by capitalism, but by the lack of it, not having a proper foreign policy, which would be protecting our rights. Instead, using the altruistic motives of nation building, spreading democracy, and the like, those unjust wars were started.

Government intervention into the economy is what has caused economic chaos.

I know I have missed replying to some of your statements, but I haven't had the time. If there is a specific that you want to argue, please reply.