4 ms·

>“Extreme steps”, whether they admit it or not, is a reduction in the standard of living of many and handicapping the efforts to improve the standard of living

>“Extreme steps”, whether they admit it or not, is a reduction in the standard of living of many and handicapping the efforts to improve the standard of living for most. And that requires the power of the individual to be reduced to empower the central authorities who will manage our new rationed, austere society. Also forcing the industry not to put polutants in the water and air has it's cost, I would like to understand why the future generation needs to pay so our generation can keep spending money on shit like ctypto, apps, luxury. I am assuming you think that if we just do nothing some billionaire would discover how to reverse this, but any facts to prove that in 50 years this will happen and the solution would be instant and cheap? And before someone would scream "think about the poor" I would say that there are solutions like fixing tax loopholes where bilionairse move to some different country or some giant company uses some shity loophole not to pay the taxes.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Also forcing the industry not to put polutants in the water and air has it's cost" it's the reverse -> allowing them to pollute and cause damage has it's cost, if a child with astma dies of air pollution, they aren't paying compensation. When someone got lead poisoning or died of black lung, companies wheren't paying for that either. If that person's family now needs support and welfare, if the pollution needs cleaning up, it's always the taxpayer picking up the tab
- simion314 5y ago
  Yes, that was my point sorry for my bad sentence. Just wanted to explain this extremist capitalists that we already make products and services more expensive by forcing companies to respect basic human rights so it won't be a completely new thing to consider CO2 as a dangerous substance and demand companies to pay a tax or even forbid shit like bitcoin where from what I read there are better alternatives. Edit, so from my understanding OP was selfish and thinking at his personal costs and not the costs for current children or future generations.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Also forcing the industry not to put polutants in the water and air has it's cost" it's the reverse -> allowing them to pollute and cause damage has it's cost, if a child with astma dies of air pollution, they aren't paying compensation. When someone got lead poisoning or died of black lung, companies wheren't paying for that either. If that person's family now needs support and welfare, if the pollution needs cleaning up, it's always the taxpayer picking up the tab

simion314 5y ago
Yes, that was my point sorry for my bad sentence. Just wanted to explain this extremist capitalists that we already make products and services more expensive by forcing companies to respect basic human rights so it won't be a completely new thing to consider CO2 as a dangerous substance and demand companies to pay a tax or even forbid shit like bitcoin where from what I read there are better alternatives. Edit, so from my understanding OP was selfish and thinking at his personal costs and not the costs for current children or future generations.