[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy.

Bravo, Sky! I like seeing common ground between us.....

I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

.....and then you go and say something like this.

As the old military axiom goes: "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." The sheer logistics of some kind of worldwide revolution of thought concerning the proper course of action for the "future of man" are so mind-boggling that they might as well be impossible. There is only one force that transcends virtually all national/cultural/and political boundaries on a daily basis by virtue of its' very nature. Can you guess what it is?

For those who don't know, it is capitalism; the exchange of goods and services with a real or perceived (caveat emptor) mutual benefit to all parties involved.

Given this, in addition to your continual prophesizing of environmental and social catastrophe, I would think that the most efficient and successful course for the "future of man" would be readily apparent. The nations that achieve the best ratios of pollution to prosperity to birth rate are all the ones that have had relatively lassiez-faire capitalist systems in place the longest. Those same nations are the ones that continually embrace newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies, even in the absence of state compulsion. Negative birth rates coupled with more highly advanced industry is a recipe for the success of mankind. Even better, such developed nations attract immigrants from poorer nations, who then, through capitalism, eventually lift themselves out of poverty and also demonstrate lower birth rates. Furthermore, such nations eventually break the economic backs and political systems of centralist nations through economic competition, leading to more, beneficial, capitalist reform. All that is needed is a limited government that cannot easily form plutocratic structures but is given the power to punish fraud.

I realize that you think the planet is running out of time, and that the "slow" nature of this kind of reform (assuming you see it as feasible) may be too slow; but consider just how quickly lightly-reined capitalism has changed the fate of nations. If Deng Xiaoping or Adam Smith or Milton Friedman are not evidence enough of the success of the economically free nation, then you surely must be aware of the significance of the Wirtschaftswunder and Ludwig Erhard. That one man is principally responsible for affording Germany the luxury of contemplating the implication of far-reaching socioeconomic policy, and the reason that some there have the luxury of having trillions of dollars(US) to spend on failed socialist initiatives.

Perhaps you continue to disagree Sky, but your apparent disdain for the limited choices amongst government indicates to me that you should not. If the state has little power to introduce new and usually harmful legislation, there is little reason to be concerned with which particular party holds the majority in a democratic system. If individual freedoms are prized even above the rule of the majority, there is little reason to fear the loss of freedom or the pursut of destructive policies. There is only the truth of the market. Supply and demand. The market will force us to ultimately adapt a sustainable system, or go from one unsustainable system to another until a sustainable one is found. Until you can show me, or even yourself, a suitable system that offers more benefits, I cannot understand why you are unwilling to adopt some version of lassiez-faire capitalism.

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority? You underestimate the laziness and phlegmatism of the majority of people, then. I do not - and that is the reason why I am so extremely pessimistic about the future of man. even more so soince i know that already repeatedly societies of the past have killed themselves for these very same reasons.

Going O/T for a moment, I have a question for you. If you do not believe in a God, and you are aware of the machinations of genes, and you are already unhappy with humanity, why do you care about the future of mankind?



My apologies for intruding on your discussion with Letum, but I do enjoy getting your perspective, even if you haven't convinced me yet.