4 ms·

> Interestingly, living within our carbon budget scares you, but not climate change No. What’s scares me is a bunch of people willing to resort to authoritari

> Interestingly, living within our carbon budget scares you, but not climate change No. What’s scares me is a bunch of people willing to resort to authoritarianism to impose their will and moralities on other people to get their way who ought to know better from literally the whole of human history. Your argument is the same tired shit I have heard for decades from various groups with an eye and agenda for control and power (evangelicals, fascists, elitists, now these leftist authoritarians) and its always the same lame excuse—“They are not educated and cannot be trusted”.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Saving the rest of us from climate deniers is authoritarianism? It sounds like self preservation to me. We’re just insisting on folks stop ruining the ecosystem the rest of us must survive in. There’s nowhere else for us to go once this one is ruined. ~1.8M voters over the age of 55 age out every year in the US, so while the argument may be tired, older folks won’t have to hear it for long (and change, while constant and inevitable, can be hard to accept).
- sandspar 3y ago
  Note: Keep this guy in mind.
- kcplate 3y ago
  You know, nearly every generation that proceeded you made some form of the “preserve the earth and society for when we are your age” argument. Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. Once upon a time, us liberals argued against that sort of thing. Probably because we saw first hand what it does to a society. Good luck, like you said, you will need to live under the fist in that world you create, I’ll be thankfully gone.
  - acdha 3y ago
    > Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. This is hard to support if you study much history. Every environmental law has been criticized as authoritarian. In the middle of the previous century, Los Angeles had smog so bad it was common not to be able to see across the street and some conservatives argued that doing anything about it was tyranny and would devastate the economy; California’s air quality laws were so effective that they were widely copied and it devastated the economy into 5th place globally. Very few of the critics ever admitted being completely wrong about that, even if they will admit that it’s easier to breathe now. That pattern repeats for water quality, bans on all kinds of pollutants, anti littering campaigns, etc. because there are a lot of industries which have a financial incentive in preserving the status quo. Often those pushes cut across industry lines, too: for example, a decade ago there was an astroturf campaign arguing that DDT restrictions were responsible for malaria deaths (based on people not knowing that evolved resistance was already a major problem in the 1950s), and that appeared to be funded not by the chemical industry but by the tobacco companies who were looking for attacks on public health agencies in Africa in response to successful anti smoking campaigns.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      But in all those cases the political process ultimately prevailed to create the laws it needed create to resolve the problem. It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. People may describe things as authoritarian in process, but once the law is established by elected representatives, it is by my definition NOT authoritarian.
      - acdha 3y ago
        > It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. Where? When? It’s by definition not applicable to the topic of this thread.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Well it’s exactly what I was talking about from the very start of my comment thread. People not having patience for the political process to play out leading them to desire and adopt authoritarian means as their solution to get their way scaring the fuck out of me.
redserk 3y ago
Could you provide us your definition of "authoritarianism"?
- kcplate 3y ago
  I think the parent comment I originally quoted and commented on is a fine example of the attitude I am concerned about. “If we can’t pass a carbon tax due to lack of political will, find other points of leverage and exert force.”
  - acdha 3y ago
    What is your definition of authoritarianism? It can’t be “if you don’t get immediate consensus for a big change, give up and stop trying to fix the problem”. Just in this context, for example, many Americans have been trained to have a strong negative reaction to the word “tax” which leads to many things being done less efficiently using other mechanisms, but it’s hardly authoritarian to find a compromise position following the democratic process.
  - redserk 3y ago
    This isn't authoritarianism. Just to review: In the US, even at the state-level, you elect officials to handle governance on your behalf. You typically elect an official to a lower legislative house, an upper legislative house, and a governor. All 3 must cooperate in some fashion for legislation to become law, unless the state has a stipulation that a threshold of legislative members may override the governor. As a resident you have say in each legislative chamber and for the state-level governor seat. Now, it's the responsibility of a truly functional legislative body to respond to unpopular political objectives by determining if the electorate wants another solution or wants the issue dropped altogether. If the legislative body makes an error, one may vote out their representative via a party primary or via scheduled elections. If they have made a grave error, typically this can be resolved via the courts as a check. While a carbon tax may very well be unpopular due to political will, a bill is proposing an alternative mechanism. This is a legislative body working as designed. So no, this isn't authoritarianism.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
Indeed. I'm happy with the Reich's strong stance against the undesirables, and I don't see why the Allies want to impose their will and moralities on us to get their way. Likewise, the Suffragettes are just using authoritarianism to push through the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. And I can't believe those barons are strong-arming the monarch, who near-everyone agrees should be ruling the country, into never enacting a tax without their say-so! Your argument is too general: it 'proves' too much. The way you talk, any kind of social change is 'authoritarianism'.
- kcplate 3y ago
  Do you really think giving examples of complacency due to fear to an authoritarian regime and a social change process that ultimately resulted in a democratic change somehow disproves my point? I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    There were plenty of people who were die-hard in favour of the Nazis' purges (and still are). There were loads of people opposed to women's suffrage (and still are). I don't know if there were objections to Magna Carta, but if there were, I'm pretty sure complacency due to fear wouldn't have been a major factor. And sure, there was lots of support for reform, in each case… but there's currently widespread support for (the idea of) taking positive action against climate change. Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. > I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed. To be clear: I agree with this. But this definition of "authoritarianism" isn't compatible with what you were originally complaining about. Every action is an imposition of will on the universe: imposition of will is neither the main problem with, nor the characteristic feature of, authoritarianism.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Saving the rest of us from climate deniers is authoritarianism? It sounds like self preservation to me. We’re just insisting on folks stop ruining the ecosystem the rest of us must survive in. There’s nowhere else for us to go once this one is ruined. ~1.8M voters over the age of 55 age out every year in the US, so while the argument may be tired, older folks won’t have to hear it for long (and change, while constant and inevitable, can be hard to accept).

sandspar 3y ago
Note: Keep this guy in mind.
kcplate 3y ago
You know, nearly every generation that proceeded you made some form of the “preserve the earth and society for when we are your age” argument. Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. Once upon a time, us liberals argued against that sort of thing. Probably because we saw first hand what it does to a society. Good luck, like you said, you will need to live under the fist in that world you create, I’ll be thankfully gone.
- acdha 3y ago
  > Your generation seems to be the only one that I can think of that wants to make it happen via authoritarian means. This is hard to support if you study much history. Every environmental law has been criticized as authoritarian. In the middle of the previous century, Los Angeles had smog so bad it was common not to be able to see across the street and some conservatives argued that doing anything about it was tyranny and would devastate the economy; California’s air quality laws were so effective that they were widely copied and it devastated the economy into 5th place globally. Very few of the critics ever admitted being completely wrong about that, even if they will admit that it’s easier to breathe now. That pattern repeats for water quality, bans on all kinds of pollutants, anti littering campaigns, etc. because there are a lot of industries which have a financial incentive in preserving the status quo. Often those pushes cut across industry lines, too: for example, a decade ago there was an astroturf campaign arguing that DDT restrictions were responsible for malaria deaths (based on people not knowing that evolved resistance was already a major problem in the 1950s), and that appeared to be funded not by the chemical industry but by the tobacco companies who were looking for attacks on public health agencies in Africa in response to successful anti smoking campaigns.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    But in all those cases the political process ultimately prevailed to create the laws it needed create to resolve the problem. It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. People may describe things as authoritarian in process, but once the law is established by elected representatives, it is by my definition NOT authoritarian.
    - acdha 3y ago
      > It was not necessary to toss out the political system and move to an authoritarian one just to make it happen. Where? When? It’s by definition not applicable to the topic of this thread.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        Well it’s exactly what I was talking about from the very start of my comment thread. People not having patience for the political process to play out leading them to desire and adopt authoritarian means as their solution to get their way scaring the fuck out of me.

redserk 3y ago

Could you provide us your definition of "authoritarianism"?

kcplate 3y ago
I think the parent comment I originally quoted and commented on is a fine example of the attitude I am concerned about. “If we can’t pass a carbon tax due to lack of political will, find other points of leverage and exert force.”
- acdha 3y ago
  What is your definition of authoritarianism? It can’t be “if you don’t get immediate consensus for a big change, give up and stop trying to fix the problem”. Just in this context, for example, many Americans have been trained to have a strong negative reaction to the word “tax” which leads to many things being done less efficiently using other mechanisms, but it’s hardly authoritarian to find a compromise position following the democratic process.
- redserk 3y ago
  This isn't authoritarianism. Just to review: In the US, even at the state-level, you elect officials to handle governance on your behalf. You typically elect an official to a lower legislative house, an upper legislative house, and a governor. All 3 must cooperate in some fashion for legislation to become law, unless the state has a stipulation that a threshold of legislative members may override the governor. As a resident you have say in each legislative chamber and for the state-level governor seat. Now, it's the responsibility of a truly functional legislative body to respond to unpopular political objectives by determining if the electorate wants another solution or wants the issue dropped altogether. If the legislative body makes an error, one may vote out their representative via a party primary or via scheduled elections. If they have made a grave error, typically this can be resolved via the courts as a check. While a carbon tax may very well be unpopular due to political will, a bill is proposing an alternative mechanism. This is a legislative body working as designed. So no, this isn't authoritarianism.

wizzwizz4 3y ago

Indeed. I'm happy with the Reich's strong stance against the undesirables, and I don't see why the Allies want to impose their will and moralities on us to get their way. Likewise, the Suffragettes are just using authoritarianism to push through the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. And I can't believe those barons are strong-arming the monarch, who near-everyone agrees should be ruling the country, into never enacting a tax without their say-so! Your argument is too general: it 'proves' too much. The way you talk, any kind of social change is 'authoritarianism'.

kcplate 3y ago
Do you really think giving examples of complacency due to fear to an authoritarian regime and a social change process that ultimately resulted in a democratic change somehow disproves my point? I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  There were plenty of people who were die-hard in favour of the Nazis' purges (and still are). There were loads of people opposed to women's suffrage (and still are). I don't know if there were objections to Magna Carta, but if there were, I'm pretty sure complacency due to fear wouldn't have been a major factor. And sure, there was lots of support for reform, in each case… but there's currently widespread support for (the idea of) taking positive action against climate change. Today, there are people afraid that, if they engage in climate activism, they will be evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, and left to starve to death. Several governments are labelling people 'extremists' for blocking traffic with their (somehow) non-violent protests, and enforcing laws against them that were originally designed for terrorism. > I don’t want an authority that is so feared that the people are afraid to speak out against it or cannot be changed. To be clear: I agree with this. But this definition of "authoritarianism" isn't compatible with what you were originally complaining about. Every action is an imposition of will on the universe: imposition of will is neither the main problem with, nor the characteristic feature of, authoritarianism.