3 ms·

I believe climate change is happening and we should adress it. Here is a very weird question: Suppose (a wild assumption) that the Republican (or any climate c

I believe climate change is happening and we should adress it. Here is a very weird question: Suppose (a wild assumption) that the Republican (or any climate change sceptic) electorate would vote for unimpeded climate protection on the condition climate change sceptics get a 50% tax cut compared to non-sceptics, would you (or should those concerned with climate change) seize that opportunity, in order to save the climate unimpeded by the sceptics? i.e. full frontal bribing part of the electorate to get out of the way?

anigbrowl 8y ago
Sure. And then I would steal all the money back at the first opportunity because they are deliberately offloading their externalities onto everyone else and have been doing so since forever. They should be treated as they have historically treated others.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >They should be treated as they have historically treated others. That sound you just heard was two million years of combined social instincts crushing any attempt at reconsideration like a grape in a trash compactor. I'm sure the Republicans on HN are glad to know that climate isn't about the good of humanity, but is actually about treating then badly...
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    I didn't say treating them badly, but treating them with reciprocity. At this point the GOP is actively committed to making things worse overall. There is no reason to accommodate them, because as an institution they have repeatedly acted in such bad faith that continuing to play along is to be complicit.
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      > ...them...them...them... It's not just us vs them. There's at least a third group: future generations. In a realpolitic sense, should we allow "them" to screw over the future generations because of "our" blame attribution (correct or not)? Reconsider the percentage of 50%: at what percentage do you change your stance? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 2%? 1%? or absolutely strictly 0%? Suppose this passes at some non-zero percentage, you are of course free to buy into Republican membership (or perhaps Democrat or other climate sceptic membershipif say a Green party or other succeeds in passing this) and reveal your true colors if you refuse to pay the larger tax... A systemic problem needs a systemic solution, up till now it has been mostly the system moralizing the individual (who realises all too well we need a systemic solution) The future generations would look back and see who can't prove they were in the added ecotax paying bracket..., of course they would see it is totally unfair, but as the problem becomes ever more urgent, the question becomes less and less about what is fair, but more and more about how the f!ck we are going to implement a timely and systemic solution, regardless of fairness... It seems like this puzzle forces one to rediscover the true meaning of humanism, patriotism and sacrifice.

anigbrowl 8y ago

Sure. And then I would steal all the money back at the first opportunity because they are deliberately offloading their externalities onto everyone else and have been doing so since forever. They should be treated as they have historically treated others.

whatshisface 8y ago
>They should be treated as they have historically treated others. That sound you just heard was two million years of combined social instincts crushing any attempt at reconsideration like a grape in a trash compactor. I'm sure the Republicans on HN are glad to know that climate isn't about the good of humanity, but is actually about treating then badly...
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I didn't say treating them badly, but treating them with reciprocity. At this point the GOP is actively committed to making things worse overall. There is no reason to accommodate them, because as an institution they have repeatedly acted in such bad faith that continuing to play along is to be complicit.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    > ...them...them...them... It's not just us vs them. There's at least a third group: future generations. In a realpolitic sense, should we allow "them" to screw over the future generations because of "our" blame attribution (correct or not)? Reconsider the percentage of 50%: at what percentage do you change your stance? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 2%? 1%? or absolutely strictly 0%? Suppose this passes at some non-zero percentage, you are of course free to buy into Republican membership (or perhaps Democrat or other climate sceptic membershipif say a Green party or other succeeds in passing this) and reveal your true colors if you refuse to pay the larger tax... A systemic problem needs a systemic solution, up till now it has been mostly the system moralizing the individual (who realises all too well we need a systemic solution) The future generations would look back and see who can't prove they were in the added ecotax paying bracket..., of course they would see it is totally unfair, but as the problem becomes ever more urgent, the question becomes less and less about what is fair, but more and more about how the f!ck we are going to implement a timely and systemic solution, regardless of fairness... It seems like this puzzle forces one to rediscover the true meaning of humanism, patriotism and sacrifice.