3 ms·

>Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the USSR. Ma

>Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the USSR. Maybe I'm not getting your point, but Assad regime is secular dictatorship, more or less? So if you wanted to say that this is something completely impossible, well, the metaphor is not quite correct. And Iran before 1979 revolution could be considered secular dictatorship as well.

CM30 7y ago
Might have not been the best example. Either way, the point being, trying to enforce environmentalism by force would probably annoy the majority of the population enough that your government wouldn't remain in power for very long.
- jokoon 7y ago
  The problem is that what is required to do will annoy everyone, no matter the angle. Withdrawal from abusive consumerism is going to be ugly, that's the issue, but it's necessary. A green dictatorship would signal that everyone is given equal treatment. It's also an emergency measure. Of course the word "dictatorship" has a very bad connotation here, because it implies oppression and violation of human rights, but that's not what I am advocating. I am advocating for the revocation of the right to emit co2. It is a very strong restriction when look around you, because consumers are really friendly towards their lifestyle which directly finance lobbying efforts to avoid a carbon tax. What is needed to do, while the industry adapt, is to allow the minimum, necessary items people needs to live: food, water, hygiene, shelter etc. while diminishing co2 emissions to their most lowest possible, and let industry to work without emissions to gradually change their process. You cannot trust the industry to reduce emissions and do a slow switch because it's going to be too slow, and you cannot trust liberalism to find quick solutions if there is no strong enough incentives. Lobbies are never going to let change happen. It's going to be too slow and chaotic, not to mention fraud and people who will disagree with human responsibility. Look at Tocqueville. Democracy is great, but when there is urgency about a complicated problem, democracy can be a problem.
  - CM30 7y ago
    The issue isn't that drastic action is not/may not be necessary, it's that the vast majority of the population will not just 'give up on consumerism' for a perceived long term benefit, and any political attempt to make them will be met with a huge amount of backlash and instability. If a political party or politician proposed what you're saying, they probably wouldn't get elected. If they tried it when in power, then the next party who gets elected would probably withdraw said restrictions. If they tried to 'turn off democracy' to do this, then people would get extremely angry, probably revolt and there would be a huge debacle. Especially given that worldwide, it'd be seen as an authoritarian coup in a democratic society, and responded to with economic sanctums, anger on the international stage and perhaps a war/support for overthrowing the government. The problem isn't that such a dictatorship or authoritarian rule is necessarily against the long term interests of the population (though many authoritarian regimes (including China) would argue the same thing for their countries). It's that it's not democratic, not backed by most of the population and (perhaps rightly) seen as an alarming development in a country's history.
    - jokoon 7y ago
      It's not democratic, so what? It doesn't mean it's not necessary. Democracy doesn't always work for the public interest. > seen as an alarming development in a country's history. What do you mean? How would "an alarming development" be problematic? Democracy or not, action is required, and despite knowledge of the problem, I don't see any progress. I have nothing against democracy. > and any political attempt to make them will be met with a huge amount of backlash and instability. I think there is enough support for drastic measures, I don't think instability is a big risk. And if there is not enough support today, there will be more at each new heatwave and forest fire.

CM30 7y ago

Might have not been the best example. Either way, the point being, trying to enforce environmentalism by force would probably annoy the majority of the population enough that your government wouldn't remain in power for very long.

jokoon 7y ago
The problem is that what is required to do will annoy everyone, no matter the angle. Withdrawal from abusive consumerism is going to be ugly, that's the issue, but it's necessary. A green dictatorship would signal that everyone is given equal treatment. It's also an emergency measure. Of course the word "dictatorship" has a very bad connotation here, because it implies oppression and violation of human rights, but that's not what I am advocating. I am advocating for the revocation of the right to emit co2. It is a very strong restriction when look around you, because consumers are really friendly towards their lifestyle which directly finance lobbying efforts to avoid a carbon tax. What is needed to do, while the industry adapt, is to allow the minimum, necessary items people needs to live: food, water, hygiene, shelter etc. while diminishing co2 emissions to their most lowest possible, and let industry to work without emissions to gradually change their process. You cannot trust the industry to reduce emissions and do a slow switch because it's going to be too slow, and you cannot trust liberalism to find quick solutions if there is no strong enough incentives. Lobbies are never going to let change happen. It's going to be too slow and chaotic, not to mention fraud and people who will disagree with human responsibility. Look at Tocqueville. Democracy is great, but when there is urgency about a complicated problem, democracy can be a problem.
- CM30 7y ago
  The issue isn't that drastic action is not/may not be necessary, it's that the vast majority of the population will not just 'give up on consumerism' for a perceived long term benefit, and any political attempt to make them will be met with a huge amount of backlash and instability. If a political party or politician proposed what you're saying, they probably wouldn't get elected. If they tried it when in power, then the next party who gets elected would probably withdraw said restrictions. If they tried to 'turn off democracy' to do this, then people would get extremely angry, probably revolt and there would be a huge debacle. Especially given that worldwide, it'd be seen as an authoritarian coup in a democratic society, and responded to with economic sanctums, anger on the international stage and perhaps a war/support for overthrowing the government. The problem isn't that such a dictatorship or authoritarian rule is necessarily against the long term interests of the population (though many authoritarian regimes (including China) would argue the same thing for their countries). It's that it's not democratic, not backed by most of the population and (perhaps rightly) seen as an alarming development in a country's history.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    It's not democratic, so what? It doesn't mean it's not necessary. Democracy doesn't always work for the public interest. > seen as an alarming development in a country's history. What do you mean? How would "an alarming development" be problematic? Democracy or not, action is required, and despite knowledge of the problem, I don't see any progress. I have nothing against democracy. > and any political attempt to make them will be met with a huge amount of backlash and instability. I think there is enough support for drastic measures, I don't think instability is a big risk. And if there is not enough support today, there will be more at each new heatwave and forest fire.