we previously had this thread but it was lost in a sitewide crash. kind of fortuitous, given all the new people!
anyways, i’m interested in how you describe yourself politically but also why you do so, and/or how you came to the beliefs that you did. be as brief or lengthy as you want in answering that.
additionally, as a preface: i would like this to be a generally non-judgemental thread and i think this community is more than capable of that, so please respect that idea.[1] in general, you are not obliged to justify to myself or anyone else why you believe what you do.
exceptions, obviously, go for bigotry or intolerant beliefs that would be otherwise incompatible with the community’s ethos. bluntly if you’re a transphobe or something like that this is not the community for you. ↩︎
Let us start, with the goals and axioms. All arguments must have axioms, all societies should have goals.
Axioms:
Goals:
So, what do we do? Well, we start looking for things that make people, animals, and others happy, especially in the long term. We’ve got plenty of data about what is good for doing that, and why. From here on I’ll focus on people, but know that people aren’t actually the only consideration.
Things people usually like:
Now, these assertions aren’t all that controversial. The problem arises when these things people like conflict with each other. The problem is when one person’s attempts at happiness and satisfaction interfere with another person’s happiness. At this point, things become very subjective. Whose happiness matters more? Why?
In general, I support the following:
Put whatever labels you want on me, I don’t care, I’m primarily dedicated to those axioms and whatever systems and programs are proven to support those axioms through data.
I’m rather fond of this pair of axioms regarding the rule of law:
I see many of our modern problems as being rooted in laws and systems which neither protect nor bind everyone equally.
I can understand your desire for markets to handle things, but I don’t think the global climate can be handled that way. Cap and trade means businesses get to shift their fossil emissions around while pretending they’re helping. We already see this with companies which buy land that’s already lush with old growth, then pretend like not clear-cutting it represents a reduction in carbon emissions equivalent to having planted all those trees. Giving corporate bad actors any opportunity to scam their way out of responsibility is the wrong approach.
LMAO yeah forest carbon capture offsets are total bullshit. The people who set up that system did not think it through, or at least they knew exactly what they were doing in order to let people game it.
A proper cap and trade system would require that in order to earn excess credits you must actually take carbon from the air and bury it in a non-volatile state at STP. Furthermore, you wouldn’t earn credits at a 1:1 rate, something like 1 ton of credit for every 2 tons you bury would be more appropriate. Things like pumping sewage into an old oil well wouldn’t count because you didn’t pull that carbon out of the air yourself.
Regardless of if it’s a market system or a prescriptive system, you have to make sure it’s actually going to do what you want it to do. The Bush administration mandated E85 corn ethanol become a thing and we still haven’t managed to actually make corn ethanol a fuel source in the aggregate, nevermind a carbon neutral energy source.
Would such a system work for microplastics? Honestly I think I’m more concerned about microplastics than emissions at this point. The shit’s scary.
A cap and trade system? It would be a lot harder to set one up that worked the way you intended. Plastics are incredibly useful, health and environmental concerns aside. So you would have greater incentive to try and write in a bunch of exceptions or tailor things perfectly and it probably wouldn’t work how you intended. My mind is thinking of loads of medical equipment that’s best made with plastics, for just one example.
With carbon dioxide? Well, there’s an easy way to generate credits by buying carbon, so you don’t actually have to ban carbon fuels entirely, meaning planes and helicopters will still have their place. But I would have a tough time coming up with an easy way to filter out and sequester plastic contaminants, so there’s not really a equivalency.
There’s also the problem of trying to properly define just what the fuck a plastic even is. Is natural rubber a plastic? What about epoxy? Wax? The second you come up with a hard definition for plastic every manufacturer is going to look for alternatives that don’t technically meet that definition.
Now, in my version of a carbon cap and trade market, it would focus entirely on what’s underground. You have to buy credits to extract carbon from under ground, and you’re awarded credits for returning it to under ground (at a less than 1:1 rate). The reason you do it that way is because it’s just the easiest point of control. Fewer players involved, obvious locations for auditing
Anyway, this system would have the side-effect of also making plastic products more expensive so manufacturers would look for alternative materials and/or alternative sources of carbon. Probably a bit of both would be going on.
Probably the only thing you could really do is set up a broad definition for what a plastic is, then put in an excise tax on plastic and write in exceptions for things where we really need the material.
It’s just a harder situation because we don’t have good substitutes for most of the applications for plastic, which isn’t true for carbon fuels.
Perhaps more than just the US military. A strong international coalition is needed that seeks to preserve the rules-based international order that was established in the aftermath of World War II. That being that countries can’t just invade other countries without expecting severe consequences. Ideally the UN would fill this role but I think it might be up to NATO and its non-NATO allied states. We are in a time where democracies are at odds with authoritarian regimes, and I feel like the only way we can prevent dictator-driven wars is to have an international military coalition that is strong enough to make them think that attacking other nations is a bad idea.
Walk softly and carry a big stick. Fleet in Being doctrine. A big paddle that has the word “No” on it. You get the picture.
I could get behind MEGA-NATO for exactly the reasons you described. I don’t know the authority structures of NATO well enough to say whether we really could turn it into a world police like we need, but assuming it’s given the flexibility to respond to belligerence while being on a short enough committee-leash to prevent it from becoming the defacto military of the US or some other powerhouse, then yeah, I’m all for it.
Is that achievable? Ehhhh… I don’t think it is right now. I think in order to prevent MEGA-NATO from just being the left arm of the current economic powerhouse, we essentially just need to not have one obvious powerhouse. I don’t think that’s ever going to happen though, which leads me back to just acceptingly defaulting to Team America World Police.
I prefer the name coined in /r/NonCredibleDefense for this mega NATO:
Pacific-Oceanic Trans-Atlantic Treaty Organization
Or POTATO for short 🥔
I like your reply.
I like the way you chose to frame this, especially as someone who on some level hates labels. This is fantastically precise, well thought out, and resonates on many levels. Cheers for presenting your info in this way, I think I’d love to present myself similarly in the future when people ask this question 😊
Agreed. This is the first post I’m saving on Lemmy.
I pretty much completely agree with you, but I’d like to add “the use of technology to solve problems”. A fair amount of leftists seem to think we should stop driving cars and eating meat, and of course their environmental, ethical, and safety concerns are valid. But we are humanity, the highest-tech species ever to walk this Earth. Surely we can find a better solution to these problems than just giving up and going back to the bad old days.