Blair calls election

[shamrock_uk]

The Green's are very socialist though and made a direct appeal to the socialist voter today. Foreign policies include scrapping Britain's nuclear weapons and withdrawal from Iraq.

Barry - who is the challenge you're referring to?

[Timber Loftis]

I'm really saddened to see the environmental movement get swallowed by socialist politics. I think environmentalism can and does work in a capitalist society, and I think it should have a chance to exist on its own merits.

Plus, I fear people like myself, who would shun environmentalism if it came at the price of socialism.

[Barry the Sprout]

I'm referring to the Respect coalition - basically a lash up between the Socialist Workers Party and George Galloway. The Times (I think, although it may have been another daily) summed it up quite well as: "I'm a Celebrity, get me elected!".

And Timber, I think socialism is not a "price", but you probably already know my views on this subject. Suffice to say I think Green capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron, and that the only way to get environmentalism is through putting people before profit, as the slogan goes.

[Aragorn1]

Not necesasrily, you can be environmentalyy friendly and make money. Capatism does not necessarily mean you maximize profit to the detriment of everything else

[Timber Loftis]

Not to start a big excursus, Barry, but you certainly can have green capitalism. The problem with the environment at this time is that it's value isn't properly accounted for. If polluters really had to pay a "real value" price for every ounce of air they polluted or soil they contaminated, it would be cost prohibitive to pollute in most instances.

Example: If you realease an effluent of hot water from your power plant and cause a fishkill, do you pay based on (a) the value to the community of having fish in the creek, including fishing and nature-watching for years to come, or (b) the market price for the dead fish based on weight? (A) is obviously the real value of the damage you've done to society, but currently (B) is what you pay.

It's not that capitalism and environmentalism don't work together -- the problem is that industry enjoys a non-capitalist advantage in the current broken model. In capitalist countries and socialist countries, btw -- all our countries give them a "bye" on real cost accounting for the environment.

As I said, it's an accounting issue.

[ 04-13-2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: The fact that they're better than Blair seems no reason to support them. Sure, the elected set are pretty terrible but that seems to no reason to run to the unelected lot in my opinion - instead it seems like more of a reason to get rid of the lot of them. Ah well, thats just me and my socialism for you...

Umm, do you understand the reason for having two houses? Its an essetial check and balance in our political system. And if you have them elected, you are likely to have a similar make up as in 'the other place' thus limiting theit effectvieness.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, why not have a lottery to select one of the houses? Or a cricket game? I don't see any virtue in having one house be selected by some arbitrary means other that choice of the people. Unless you're a blueblood, of course. Which, you may very well be, given your distrust of the electorate.

[shamrock_uk]

Well, Blair has announced in his manifesto he'd be getting rid of the rest next term so it'll be completely appointed then.

Yeah, a lottery would be a good second best. Trouble is that doesn't give you minimum standards of education and intellect. I could be way off the mark here but do members of the Lords get salaries? I seem to remember hearing that being independently wealthy was necessary. That could've been a few hundred years ago though...

Re. capitalism and the environment - I'm right with you in principle TL, it is all about accounting. I happen to believe that it's impossible to account correctly for environmental damage with any measure of accuracy so more socialist measures might be necessary. Even those schemes where we substitute a market process like tradeable pollution permits only function to a limited degree in practice.

Does anyone know how Blair's reforms will affect the Law Lords? Will they continue to sit in the Lords regardless of whether they're hereditary or not?

[ 04-13-2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

I don't think it would be possible to assign a monetary value to environmental damage, especially when you try to define "future value". You would have to begin with current market value, which front-loads capitalism into environmental concerns. Plus, you would have to consider the source of the person or agency calculating the value--are they underestimating the current value or overestimating it to sway the future numbers? I'm afriad that calculating future environmental damage monetarily is akin to solving the three-body problem.

Also, what happens if environmental damage happens and no one is culpable? Natural disasters often cause widespread environmental damage, even if on a short-term scale.

**********

Our two-party system is long overdue for an overhaul. Although some parties have lately begun to make inroads into the system (the Libertarians make a serious effort and Perot's party--what was it called again? [img]tongue.gif[/img] --was comic relief) they are doing so too slowly.
One need not be a "blueblood" to have trepidation vis-a-vis the electorate. An uninformed electorate--and America definitely has one of those--is a true danger to the democratic process. This is because uninformed electorates vote for only one issue (pro-life or pro-choice) or for a celebrity who happens to be pursuing political office based on their media appeal. Uninformed electorates deserve what they get; unfortunately, the rest of us wind up suffering as well.
Capitalism is also a problem that can cripple the democratic process. Why shouldn't people be allowed to sell their vote? I once calculated that the American Presidency could be purchased for about $3.5B, give or take $1B, well within the pockets of the ultra-rich. This, of course, means that the bought-out voters deserve what they get and the rest of us suffer along with them.

Sadly, I cannot fix those two problems--yet--without resorting to severly limiting the number of people who vote, and that wouldn't serve anyone's best interests, either.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: Umm, do you understand the reason for having two houses? Its an essetial check and balance in our political system. And if you have them elected, you are likely to have a similar make up as in 'the other place' thus limiting theit effectvieness.

Trust me, I understand the stated reasons. I'm a political theory student. And I'm with Timber on this question (although not on the other one being discussed). The need for two chambers doesn't mean that one of them needs to be apointed from a selection of business leaders, religious representatives, and irrelevant aristocratic idiots. They could be elected regionally for example, or proportionally, ensuring their make up would be pretty different from the Commons. Plus, if you really want to get worked up about consitution and seperation of powers in Britain then theres a thousand and one things that need sorting out more urgently than the two chamber legislative. Looking for the stated purpose of institutions in the British "constitution" is a bit hopeless to be honest, as most of them are so badly in need of reform its kind of hard to know where to start.

On the environment question Timber I'm aware that its not only socialists who think they've found the answer to environment issues, what I'm saying is that we're the only people with the right answer! As you say, capitalism makes it all about accounting - in other words its about making it more expensive for pollute one way or the other. Either by making cleaner options cheaper or by making the risk of getting caught a very expensive one. The problem is that in order to make it more profitable to be clean you need to raise fines to a drastically high level or increase safety inspections efficiency quite a lot. The problem is that a lot of people have a large interest in precisely the opposite, and they're the ones with the cash to afford a proper campaign on the issue. Start imposing higher fines and people will start wailing about the attacks on the free market that you're imposing, and about how bad for business such measures are. And they'd be right - businesses would be better off without those measures, which is why I'm quite happy saying that if its bad for business its good for me. Having your cake and eating it on this issue is a tricky tightrope to walk. There is an inevitable tension between environmentalism and capitalism.