by frog
We can all pitch in by being better conservers of energy. I mean people just need to recognise … that if they are able to maybe not drive, on a trip that’s not essential, that would be helpful… We can curtail non-essential travel. If it makes sense for the citizen out there, it darn sure makes sense for federal employees. We can encourage employees to carpool or use mass transit.
So, who do you reckon said this? Jeanette Fitzsimons? Bob Brown? Ralph Nader? Tony Blair? Al Gore? Gordon Brown? Kofi Annan?
Nope, nope, and nope. It was George Dubya Bush. Perhaps there’s hope for the right yet 
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, September 27th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Reminds me of the time during the first Gulf War when his dad asked Americans to leave their second and third cars at home to conserve fuel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There might just be something in that head of his after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is … if he actually thought of it himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can’t help thinking his motives are more selfish.
Though, if selfish motives get good results that can’t be a bad thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As George Monbiot explains in today’s Guardian, Bush has been supplied with some interesting reports on peak oil recently. Perhaps that’s what is behind this statement?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1578864,00.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
not here:
You just summed up capitalism. Cool isn’t it, when you see the light?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
His full statement refers to his desire to move towards ‘nucular’ energy as the way of the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If Bush said it, it’s got to be wrong. Screw the bus, I’m buying a 4WD to burn petrol in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Capitalism… hmm.. yes.. that authoratarian institution that might have managed to start seeing the light 30 years after democratic, but economically powerless institutions, had already seen the light. Possibly 30 years too late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Christiaan: Sorry, what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chris, still touting the virtues of unfettered capitalism around the place?
The occasional and accidental intersection of selfish intentions with positive outcomes is hardly illuminating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheney et.al. want to use it as a wedge to stomp on the NIMBY opposition to nuclear power plants. They are also a bit concerned that if the oil company profits go any higher they may be hammered into coughing some of those profits back up in some manner by public opinion. Likely the major players are well invested in the N-Power developers as well.
That’s their purpose in having Bush say it.
As for Dubya thinking of it hisself, just put that out of your head. They don’t let him out without a keeper anymore.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chris:
As a former member of the Libertarianz, a party which makes the likes of ACT and the Business Roundtable look like ‘hippies’, I can assure you that selfishness (or pure and unincumbered self-interest, if you like it put more euphemistically) and desirable, mutually beneficial outcomes (such as the common good) are virtually mutually exclusive.
Read Ayn Rand’s ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ – the Bible of laissez-faire capitalism – with an open mind (yes I’m willing to be magnanimous) and you will see the light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RedGreen
Nope – I read Ayn Rand and in time recognized that her philosophy and my sophomore year at University were fairly well matched. I’ve learned better about laissez-faire and the “virtues” of capitalists in general. The flawed assumptions about the law, the capitalist’s relationship to it, and the even larger profits available to those who cheat, make her work unpalatable at best now.
She spins a decent yarn though.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
naah he only say “”maybe not dwive”", fascists say maybe, maybe, maybe, we just dwive the v8 down see what happen on kaweangahappy road,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i think it may be true..sorry no clever quote i tried hard..but too mny concussions.. those converted are more expressive than those who have always accepted.
BJ and RedGreen you sound like you’re in the same position i was in hard out money hngry, im sorry from interest what ‘turned’ you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh hang on, RedGreen are you espousing laissez-faire??
I think the idea that Hedonism begets wide-range benefits is far too short-sighted. To an extent yes..but when the laissez-faire frame of mind is used exclusively to adopt policies centred only toward materialistic goals then the ‘common good’ surely is marginalised….what of those ill-represented. and as laissez-faire is materialistically based surely it is very hard to argue that people with abundant materials are over represented, therefore it isn’t ‘mutually’ beneficial but ‘exclusively beneficial.
The great tragedy of economics interpreting Adam Smiths old philosophy is the marginalisation of ‘perfect competition’. Of course for the maximum benefits toward society all groups must be equally represented..I challenge anyone to argue that laissez-faire tends toward equal representation in anything other than maybe political enfranchisement..BTW useless unless the parties you can vote for are equally represented.
I have not read this book but i have been an economics and finance student all throughuni and have heard all these familiar arguments…but remain unconvinced
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ishy:
Espousing laissez-faire? Oh haha hell no…absolutely not!
What I meant was that if one were to take the time and trouble to read Ayn Rand’s works carefully, one would be able to find more holes in it than a sponge.
Sorry bjchip and ishy if I came across as touting the soundess of her philosophy!
Perhaps I could’ve worded my statement better…
My point is that if people were to read and understand the philosophical underpinnings of laissez-faire capitalism – best exemplified and epitomised in Rand’s works – people would actually realise that the philosophies of ACT, Libertarianz and free-marketeers are rather convoluted and highly flawed, not to mention rather repulsive.
In a way I’m glad I was once a member of the Libertarianz, because my experience interacting and conversing with various puritan free-marketeers has given me a valuable insight into the minds of laissez-faire advocates, their objectives, their rationale, their motivations and so on.
Sometimes the best way to defeat your enemy is to infiltrate them, and use their weapons against them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)