The Green bashing moratorium is obviously over
In a post appropriately called Green Bashing, Dave Farrar last night links to and quotes a blogger who is claiming that Nicky Hagar blamed the Right for Rod’s death and links to and summarises another who lists various things Keith said decades ago.
I’m disappointed that DPF has chosen to point to such rubbishy posts. I really can’t be bothered with a point-by-point refutation of all the words behind the links, so here’s as concise and broad brush stroke an answer as I can manage.
The quote DPF opens with is a delighful contradiction
“a socialist brand that tries to hide its real agenda behind the caring, sharing, friendly face of conservation and protection of resources”
Hm, if we were *hiding* our real agenda, how come we keep getting criticised by all and sundry for speaking out on social justice issues? The debate, both within the Party and beyond, between the ‘Greens should stick to saving birds’ and ‘you can’t save the planet without saving its people’ arguments are a matter of considerable public record.
Surely if we were SECRET socialists, we would only ever talk about “conservation and protection of resources” and be waiting to get some real power before letting loose on our “real agenda”?
On Nicky’s speech and the emerging claim that the Greens have somehow deliberately tried to exploit Rod’s death.
Firstly let’s be clear, whereas the initial belief that Rod was killed by a heart attack meant there was some public musing by Greens and others that he was done in by overwork, the eventual finding of viral myocarditis means Rod was simply unlucky, his work load had nothing to do with it.
So when Nicky said the attacks on Rod “took their toll”, he meant on the psychological or *spiritual* level (I mean spirit as in enthusiasm not soul).
The Greens have not tried to exploit Rod’s death, the scale of the response was generated by the outside world and required no encouragement from us at all. It’s been so overwhelming in fact that, as I have said here and others alluded at the Parliamentary service on Monday, we have felt that Rod has in some ways been taken away from us.
As someone who has been hopping around this office over the last few weeks, I can say that everyone here has been in shock, are still hurting and have, as a result, very much been carried along by events. To suggest that we have controlled things not only credits us with more influence than we have, but also attributes us with a level of cold manipulative inhumanity that I find, to be frank, pretty damn offensive. As I say, its disappointing that DPF would dignify such bile with a link. 
As to the Keith stuff. It is so silly defining people by their politics decades ago (and distorting even that record). No one ever does it with Donna Awatere-Huata, Stephen Franks, Ken Shirley, Deborah Coddington or Maurice Williamson, all of whom had radical pasts. The blogger in question was apparently circulating stuff in the 70s claiming Mike Moore (the ex-PM, not the film maker) was a dangerous lefty. Would anyone claim that he is now? Clearly while Keith and Mike have moved on, in different directions, this blogger hasn’t.
DPF leaves out the blogger’s repetition of the slander that Keith supported Pol Pot. As Keith has said in Parliament, he, like all of the anti-Vietnam War movement, welcomed the overthrow of the corrupt US puppet regime in Phnom Penh by the Khmer Rouge, having no idea what was going to happen next. When Pol Pot emerged and the killing fields began, he was at the forefront in NZ of opposing the Khmer Rouge at a time when the Muldoon Government supported it.
Keith was directly elected to his place on the Green list by 3000+ members and then into Parliament by 120,000 or so voters at the most recent election. As such he and the Greens have been judged twice now on his record as an MP and are still here.
BTW, it’s a good thing that greens go well in a sandwich, cos if we’re not being accused of being closet socialists by the right, we’re being accused of being closet capitalists by the anarchists.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I linked to it, knowing that would get Frog to respond to it. For the record I think all parties in Parliament (except Jim’s and Winston’s) have pretty honourable aims but I do regard the Greens non-environmental policies as being socialism under another name. You’re entitled to them, but people are entitled to point them out - admittedly IP uses extravagent language, but that is his style.
As for Keith, Trevor did not focus just on the Pol Pot issue - that was a small portion of the research. It does show that over his lifetime Keith has supported pretty much every communist cause there is, and argued against the West continually. He is consistent though!
For my part I have no problem with Keith because at least you know where he stands on an issue. Unfortunately it is almost universally the wrong side (in my opinion).
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:26 pm
There’s a classic piece of film that was famous back in my Labour Youth days, of Phil Goff being dragged off the stage at a Labour Party conference screaming ’socialism forever!’. The real question is not whether politician X really say Y twenty years ago, but why only a very few politicians get singled out for this treatment.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
As for Keith, Trevor did not focus just on the Pol Pot issue - that was a small portion of the research. - yes DPF; but you obviously thought it significant enough to make note of. And in doing so you repeated a totally inaccurate slur: that Keith in some way supported Pol Pot’s killing fields. Clearly he didn’t.
The real question is: why do you feel the need to repeat lies about Green Party members? Can’t you debate them on policy issues?
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:44 pm
The point I was making, Frog, was that it is hypocritical for the Left to attempt to politicise Rod Donald’s death. I have no doubt that those of you who knew him well would prefer that his memory is accorded a degree of dignity. That is fair, and fine, and I respect that.
Many people who spoke and wrote about Rod Donald referred to him as a saintly figure in New Zealand politics. That is totally inaccurate, but again, I don’t have a specific objection to it.
But where certain people on the Left have used Rod Donald’s death to score political points–as Nicky Hager and Catherine Delahunty did–to criticise those who disliked his political views but accorded him respect in death–then they are trying to make a political statement. When they say, effectively, “you b*stards on the Right gave him a hard time in life!”, then there is no dignified response to that. There is no dignified response, because it is not a dignified statement on their part.
How you mourn him is your choice. But when Nicky Hager, and others, speak of the hypocrisy of the Right who paid Rod Donald respect in death, then you can expect an equally undignified response to that.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
No, IP, the dignified response to Nicky Hagar is the same you give a tantrum-chucking toddler - don’t reward offensive behaviour with the desired attention.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:57 pm
The link about anarchists accusing the Greens of being capitalists goes to the old post about the subject The new post accusing Greens of being capitalists is here: http://snap.enzyme.org.nz/2005/11/anarchism-vs-social-democracy.html
November 24th, 2005 at 7:54 am
All this talk about socialists reminded me of a recent article which gave the Australian Greens (and the Green movement globally to a certain extent) a rollocking. Assuming the article has actually reported facts, I find it disturbing that the Australian Greens took this stance on the legislation referred to. God forbid NZ would ever consider such law, I bet all NZ Green MP’s would have none of it and stand up with a firm NO vote. I’d be curious to know what others think about this…Link follows, well worth reading:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/sena-n07.shtml
November 24th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Frog,
You spend some time pointing out that there’s nothing ‘closet’ about the Green party’s left-leaning social platform.
But your capitalism doesn’t seem any more ‘closet’ than your socialism. The Greens policies are just not all that radical, compared to anarchists and communists. There seems nothing tendentious about the anarchists’ claim that your current policies aim to reform and moderate capitalism rather than to junk it completely.
Unless there is Policy Document on The Utter Destruction of Capitalism (with footnotes on removal of private property and replacement of corporations with anarcho-syndicalist collectives) that you’ve been distributing to select anarchists to try and keep your street cred, but which you don’t really mean to live up to?
November 24th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I’m surprised that calling the Greens socialists would even raise an eyebrow or be worth a post. They are, they’re proud of it, and so is most of their voter base. Outside of the nutty right blogosphere, socialist is a political position rather than a dirty word, hardly something to hide or be ashamed of any more than being a monetarist is.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Ben, socialism taken to its logical conclusion (communism, Nazism) led to the deaths of millions.
How can you possibly consider socialism a respectable political position?
November 24th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Percy… Socialism taken to an EXTREME conclusion leads to those things, just as Capitalism taken to an EXTREME conclusion leads to sweatshops and slavery and ultimately revolutions and the deaths of millions. Moreover, the Nazi/Fascist play involves the capitalists taking control of the state, and making it work for them. I would argue that it is not really a socialist result… but that isn’t important… what is important is that neither work as an extreme… and extremes are not logical. They are devices of rhetorical convenience. Moderate Socialism balanced against Capitalism works quite successfully in a LOT of countries.
We can argue about the balance, but the capitalists are in complete control of only one major economy (the USA) and it is moving towards Fascism at an alarming rate. Whether this can/will continue will be interesting to see… from a great a distance as possible. Everyone else has some mixture of the two and some balance struck. We’re in favour of more social justice than you like.
I think that’s why you aren’t a Green, yes?
respectfully
BJ
November 24th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
aah percy…are you off and running again ..are you..?
why don’t you save us all some time percy..and you tell us what positions you consider ‘respectable’….:)
(and why don’t you comment here under your nome de guerre..rightwingdeathbeast..?…:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Did anyone else feel sick reading (actually skimming, and reading the comments…I don’t give a damn what Keith Locke did or didn’t say in 1975) the weblog entry by that guy (Trevor Loudon)? Just pathetic…that red face grinning back at you filled with hate
Just pathetic. Sure, you’ll justify it to yourself as putting the facts on record, whatever. But we know why you really do it - because a lot of people can be easily manipulated into hating and abandoning their brains right along next to you. The whole attitude, using someone’s past to try and discredit the person, make the rednecks hate them, and distract people from the arguments they are trying to present…and doing this so blatantly…just makes me sick.
What kind of twisted abusive love-less childhood makes a person that spiteful? I feel sorry for you, mate. I hope one day you’re embarressed at what you’ve done. Or at least…why you’re doing it
And to the people who rate themselves as political commentators (David Farrer) and justify such venomous personal attacks by linking to them…I hope you can sleep easy. Make sure to tell your grandkids one day that you were proud to be part of the movement that helped US-style “attack the person” politics replace “argue the point” as the norm in NZ.
Good one guys. Way to inspire respect
November 24th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
I guess that also reminded me of a great Shihad song…
the lyrics are here
http://www.staticecstasy.com/lyrics&tabs/lyrics/hateboys.php
November 24th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Tom:
Feh… Once more, I’ll respectfully suggest those who don’t like “attack politics” would be more gainfully employed cleaning up their own glasshouses - because we all know the left never, ever indulge in personal abuse. Perhaps we should ask David ‘Silent T’ Cunliffe about how the left abhorrs personal abuse, ay? And perhaps the left should actually get over the fact the National Party is led by a former Governor of the Reserve Bank.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
bjchip
“Capitalism taken to an EXTREME conclusion leads to sweatshops and slavery and ultimately revolutions and the deaths of millions.”
Only in your sick mind. This is exactly what resulted from communism, yet you have it equated with capitalism. How can capitalism possibly lead to slavery? The whole idea of capitalism is freedom of contract, a principle that is intrinsically anti-slavery.
“Moreover, the Nazi/Fascist play involves the capitalists taking control of the state, and making it work for them. I would argue that it is not really a socialist result…”
Wrong. Read this description of the Nazi economic system, it sounds pretty bloody socialist to me: “What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party. The capitalists got their (sharply reduced) dividends. But like other citizens they were not free to spend more of their incomes than the Party deemed as adequate to their status and rank in the hierarchy of graduated leadership. The surplus had to be invested in exact compliance with the orders of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.”
Full article at: http://www.mises.org/story/1823
Hitler was a socialist. You’re on the same side of the political spectrum as he was. Does that worry you? It should.
“but that isn’t important… what is important is that neither work as an extreme… and extremes are not logical. They are devices of rhetorical convenience. ”
Capitalism isn’t extreme, it’s moderate. Socialism is extreme. Randian libertarianism/anarchism is extreme. Capitalism is in the middle.
Socialists want no limit to the power of the state provided it suits their agenda. Randians want no state. In the middle are moderates, who think the state should enforce individual rights and responsibilities, but not be used as a tool to “advance” society towards some great “utopia”. And that’s what capitalism is all about: Individual rights.
“Moderate Socialism balanced against Capitalism works quite successfully in a LOT of countries.”
In the same way as a LOT of cars drive along quite successfully with the handbrake on I suppose. In any case, there is no such thing as a moderate socialist. A moderate socialist is really just a pragmatic communist.
There’s no difference, philosophically, between state provision of education, and state provision of food. Why do “moderate” socialist parties favour one, but not the other? Because one appeals to the electorate, the other doesn’t.
The underlying philosophy is no different to communism, only the marketing and the delivery.
November 24th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
And do you think it’s a good thing do you Craig??
Do we have a better standard of democracy because we’ve all decided to slur and smear politicians? Of course not. Do you agree with that?
I never implied that the greens or labour are free from attack politics, did I? So - irrelevant. Clean up own glasshouse? I’m nothing to do with the greens or anyone. But yeah, disagree with everything mate, go on
The comments on that guys webpage show the effect that focussing on the man, not the policies or arguments, does to people. All the angries chip in, have a swear and a rant at the greens, reinforce each other’s ideas, provide mutual support and create this myth that **whoever** is a raving nutter. Its a fact-free convincing-yourself rage-session to make white males with small (lives) feel good about themselves.
Sigh. I guess it’s a bit naive to expect quality discussion on the net…
November 24th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
A bit of revisionist history going on here here (or a lack of knowledge?)
Percy says:
“Ben, socialism taken to its logical conclusion (communism, Nazism)…”
and
“How can you possibly consider socialism a respectable political position?
Hitler was a socialist…”
Wikipedia says:
Officially, the fascist and Nazi state sought to incorporate and harmonize all diverging economic interests. It was considered very important to unite labor and capital (workers and bosses) in order to combat socialism.
Which source should we believe?
Sorry Percy, I choose Wikipedia (and my own knowledge).
Don’t be fooled by the word “socialism”.
Nazism is right wing not left.
eredwen
November 25th, 2005 at 12:59 am
Dismount from the bloody high horse, Tom. I just find it rather ironic that you claim to dislike ‘personal attacks’ when you’ve made several irrelevant and (highly presumptuous) cracks about “white males” with “twisted loveless childhoods”. Gee, why don’t you take a hard look at the stereotypes - and factual voids - in your own rhetoric and ask whether it really qualifies as “quality discussion”?
November 25th, 2005 at 2:43 am
Ah Craig, you’ve come up with the goods.
So it’s Cunliffe the dirty lefty who justifies all the abuse hurled at the Greens! Dear me, I didn’t even know he was in the party.
Wait a minute, he can’t be a GP member, that would make 7 MPs. So he must still be with Labour (that’s a different glasshouse Craig, just a stone’s throw away, to be sure). Tell you what, I’ll ask me mum, she’s a LP member, perhaps she can get him to clean up his act.
November 25th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Percy
The “Mises” definition of socialism is the extreme in which the state DOES own everything. You must KNOW that, but you insist on calling me names? If I wanted to define Libertarianism as anarchy, which is not a stretch if IT is taken to extremes, then I can make an equally compelling case… unfortunately for you, reality is another condition you must KNOW about but seemingly are intent on ignoring.
You must be very happy.
Do you remember the French riots, the period so persuasively documented by Hugo? The near pure capitalism that nearly destroyed their society? I was talking about that.
The question one has to ask is how many of the Fascists came from the business community.
You can google fascism socialism and businessmen and get a more balanced view… or you can just accept Mises as god and be done with reason. Your option.
The wikipedia has a lot to say about this, some snips :
Fascism rejects Marxism and the concept of class struggle
Now I don’t think anyone here has rejected that concept. Not even me, and I LIKE capitalism…. WHERE IT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. It isn’t always. This is your (and Mises) problem.
There are elements of both left and right ideology in the development of Fascism, but it generally attracts political support from right-wing and ultra-conservative movements and electoral parties.
Welcome to the real world Percy. Fascism is only in a very small regard “socialist”. The State may control the means of production by regulation, but itself is supported by Capitalists as a means of suppressing worker’s aspirations. This has nothing to do with socialism.
In Germany, for example, there were many prominent businessmen who supported Hitler’s party from the early days. As early as 1922, Hitler’s backers included publishers, steel magnates and the industrialist Fritz Thyssen. One major factor behind Hitler’s breakthrough in the 1930 elections was a pact with the leading German media magnate, Alfred Hugenburg. Other blocs of capital preferred a quieter solution to the crisis. When the economy was at its strongest, the fascist methods often appeared barbaric. Yet as recession took hold, many bosses concluded that they had no other option but to crush the workers.
http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm
OK… so we’ve established what so far?
Hitler was a FASCIST… fascism also includes A feature (total economic control by the state) of extreme socialism (communism).
Does it worry you that you are completely misled by this inclusion, to the conclusion that the two are the same? I am breaking a rule here by arguing the point at all, but I will not let you go on in total ignorance without being SURE someone has told you, at least once, the truth.
Capitalism as practiced now IS extreme because it has NO controls over the actions of one sector of the society. This in the same manner as Fascism and Communism have no controls over the government sector. When a regulation is introduced that holds the Capitalist to a standard of behaviour with respect to his/her workers or the environment, the howling commences. If there were NO regulation there would be revolution within 2 generations and their blood would stain the streets. Adam Smith capitalism isn’t of that same sort, but then he also favoured a graduated income tax. Not your cup of tea eh?
Socialists want no limit to the power of the state provided it suits their agenda.
Which one of us said that? Where is the socialist who claimed that the state should have NO limits? Can you show me a real SOCIALIST, not a communist or a Stalinist, who made that assertion?
A brake analogy… good. WOULD YOU DRIVE A CAR THAT HAD NO BRAKES? It wouldn’t be legal for one thing… but Omigod, that’s the STATE controlling something you want to do.
BJ
November 25th, 2005 at 10:23 am
HMMM… I recall some time ago a comment somewhere that in every fdebate someone eventually brings up Hitler as a supposed trump card. The logic seems to be that if your political opponent ever walked in a north-easterly direction, all you need to do to attack them is to claim that Hitler once did the same.Or conversly, since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, anyone with a gripe about Stalinism must be a Nazi.
I would like to note, that despite some nonsense in this discussion, anarchism and right-wing libertarianism have little in common. The former wants to remove the state, the latter wants to keep it as a policing mechanism. While liberatarians claim to be reducing the size of the state, they are simple altering the way state power is exercised. An array of laws, by-laws and regulations, are to be replaced by a massive increase in contracts and civil claims - a lawyer’s wet dream.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Sam:
Indeed, which is why I think Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies is a damn useful thing. OTOH, I’ve tried (not always successfully) to cut the term “Stalinist” from my political lexicon since a good friend (lefty, FWIW) literally threw a copy of Robert Conquest’s ‘The Great Terror’ at my head.
Much as I may despise Helen Clark and all her works, I don’t think she’s planning to turn Soames Island into a gulag or engineer the mass starvation of her political enemies.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:49 am
And to pickup where Sam left off.. the rule runs that whenever Hitler is quoted, the debate is officially declared over..
November 25th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Yes - I wasn’t keen to ansewr him, I know the rule well, but he is SO delusional. It doesn’t pay to argue with fools. I apologize for the missed ending of italics… No previews here, so hard to see when something slips (Frog, that’d be a useful feature if it were available).
We exist in balance and in tension with all life. Political and otherwise. Where balance fails so too does life. Political and otherwise. Greens are all about balance. IMHO.
respectfully
BJ
November 25th, 2005 at 11:16 am
The argument about “No Controls” over one sector of the society is true in the USA, not here. Business in NZ is still not in control of the state. (I so hate posting in haste)
respectfully
BJ
November 25th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
bjchip, a few points:
You tell me that the “Misesâ€? definition of socialism is the extreme in which the state DOES own everything, as though that is some kind of rebuttal. But that was the whole point of what I quoted. In Nazi Germany the state did in effect own everything because the state exercised all the powers of ownership. Another quote from Mises: “The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption.”
You also accuse me of calling you names. I haven’t called you a single name.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am a capital L doctrinaire Randian libertarian. I am not. I agree that absolute Libertarianism is anarchy…didn’t you read my post? I said: “Randians want no state.� It can’t get much clearer than that I wouldn’t have thought.
Then you tell me that there was “near pure capitalism� in France. France! I don’t think so.
If there’s something you think I should read, preferably quote it or at least link to it. I have no intention of following pompous instructions from you to google a bunch of vague keywords in the hope that I might become remotely as well read as your oh-so-erudite self.
Marxism’s “class struggle� and Hitler’s “ein volk� are two different ways of marketing a mutual (and typically socialist) opposition to inequality.
Cf. the Green’s “together we can make a future which respects every human being� style of rhetoric.
Hitler’s support from business doesn’t tell us that he wasn’t socialist, merely slightly less socialist than his communist opponents. How absurd try to argue that a system of (in your words) “total economic control by the state� has nothing to do with socialism and is somehow a capitalist plot to keep oppressing the worker. I suggest you look at the definition of socialism: “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.�
Capitalists don’t need controls over them because they have no controls over anyone else. It’s all voluntary. If you don’t volunteer for the employer’s regulations, you don’t have to abide by them. That’s the beauty of it. That doesn’t result in blood in the streets; it results in the best outcomes for employer and employee. It is government sector that needs more controls at the moment, particularly in the USA, it is far too bloated and inefficient.
Can you show me one socialist who has said “It would be good for X if the government interfered, but that’s really not the government’s role.�? (Where X=music, art, education, or anything else)
I don’t understand the “no brakes� thing. Must we slow down if we become too prosperous? Must we be able to bring the economy to a crashing halt for some reason?
November 26th, 2005 at 2:19 am
Percy
What I was pointing out is that Mises is not infallible and in this instance THEY struck out at a straw man. Socialism and Fascism are not the same. They have ONE aspect in common, when the socialism is at its most extreme (communism). Socialism doesn’t espouse the level of control that you ascribe to the wished for thoughts of socialists.
You said I had a “sick mind” - does it ring a bell? I really have little patience for such insults.
Socialism in France, in the period during and after the revolution, was characteristically absent. The “Left” in France at the time, stood for laissez-faire capitalism… this resulted in oppression unusual even for people who were used to feudalism. It is in this period that “Les Miserables” is set, and it is in this domain that laissez-faire got its name. In time the left went round to the socialist/communist ideals and the right (previously royalists) bought into the capitalist doctrines. SINCE then there have been damned few “unfettered capitalists” in France, so I am not surprised that this was news to you, but consider that Laissez-Faire IS a French adjective… the original source of the mess, as communism was born in the wound it made in the body politic.
The manner in which I “assumed” something about your version of capitalism… does it not have some passing resemblance to the manner in which you asserted something about socialism’s relationship to fascism?
Your assertion that Capitalists don’t need controls is an error. An error as massive as Marx’s error in asserting that the state didn’t need controls (that it would wither and die when it was no longer needed)… less damaging because fewer people are likely to believe you. Capitalists achieve monopolistic and power advantages over people as their companies grow and if you don’t believe it, go ahead and complain to Herr Gates about what happened to WordPerfect.
They are not required to use FAIR trade to get their profits, and there is no means for any individual to enforce fair trade on them once they control enough of the market. The results are the equivalent of feudalism if they don’t get hold of the reigns of power in government. If they get those as well, the result tends towards fascism. Which is what is building in the USA these days.
Now you have called me pompous as well. I have tried HARD to be polite with you Percy, but there are limits and you are rapidly approaching the wall.
I suppose that I am what you’d call a socialist, most greens lean in that direction, but you really SHOULD recognize the areas where we try to limit government intervention… religion, victimless crime (drug laws), corporate welfare. We don’t want the government to entertain any unnecessary restrictions on business. We don’t want control of the means of production. But we embrace the ideal that the commons must be priced into the business model, or all bets are off. The market doesn’t work without feedback, and the abuse of the commons has always been free.
Capitalism is our tool of choice for dealing with the environmental problem, Kyoto is a capitalist tool! The problem of course, is that climate change is a 50-80 year lagging effect. Capitalism and the market have no capability to deal with events like that, there has never been a price put on the commons before.
Capitalists don’t like it, they can SEE how it will “hurt business” and reduce growth. Uncontrolled growth also has a name which you should recognize. Cancer. It kills people and uncontrolled growth kills societies as well.
Perhaps we need some brakes?
Always with the overstatement of the issue. Must we be able to bring the economy to a crashing halt for some reason?
No, but we do want the ability to control our speed so we don’t run off the road.
The invisible hand also kills…
BJ