Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Stavros]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.

[russtafa]

i don't think so

[Prospero]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.

Very well argued Stavros.

Meanwhile Russtafa responded "I don't think so." Actually his post would have been more honest if he had simply omitted the "so".

[Ben]

Acquiring inordinate riches is very rational. It's rational self interest. I mean, why should I care if the old woman down the street doesn't have enough to eat. Ain't my problem. Or the old guy down the street doesn't have health care.

Whether you agree with the point or not, Ben, you are drawing attention to the extreme form of individualism that one associated with Ayn Rand. The argument is an old one, and has been part of the libertarian/anarchist concept of the state as explained by the late Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia. But there is a problem with the theory because the individual who is only looking after No 1 has not in most cases built the house in which they live; has not built the roads on which they drive, or the car they are using. Most do not grow all the food they eat or make the clothes that they wear, and when they need health care, they need a trained professional. In other words, they are not individuals in a vacuum, they are individuals in a society, and owe much of what enables them to live, to other people -just as other people may be dependent on them for a job if they are, say owners of a business.

So it is not about individuals living in isolation from each other, it is about what Rawls called Justice as Fairness, it is about a moral choice about distribution, and whether or not you want to live in a society where people are paid a fair wage for a day's work, and whether they can afford basic necessities. We all live in societies, even if we do not participate in social activities, we all benefit from what others do just as sometimes we have to pay the cost. The aggregate cost of national health care in the UK for each individual is small, the reward is beyond calculation because it is security of mind for the times when something goes wrong, it is knowing that a service is there free at the time of use whenever you need it, and because it is valued by society as a whole, with the exception of a few idiots in the Conservative Party.

The key argument about climate change is that we can all make a difference as individuals, by modifying the way we live without drastically changing its details; it is a moral choice that should benefit generations to come; people are free to make the choice or disagree with the science, but will still live with the consequences.

Selfish and greedy individuals are a minority, let them stay that way.

The author and journalist Naomi Klein went to the Wall Street protest/occupation because, in part, she saw a sign that read: "I care about you."
I mean, that's what's scary about hyper individualism. That we're taught not to care about other people. Ya know, I've got to maximize my own wealth. And one's kids and grandkids don't matter.... And the entire ecosystem doesn't matter. Ya know, we can trash the place -- despoil the air, the water, the soil -- and this is seemingly rational. That's why it's scary.
So, it's short-term personal gain. Nobody else matters. Your kids and grandkids, again, don't matter. (The American author Thom Hartmann described Ayn Rand as being a psychopath. Was her philosophy based on psychopathy? Well, in part, it was indeed based on simply not caring about other people. I don't know what Rand thought about future generations. Ya know, whether or not we should care about future generations. Did she????)
And our culture is built on this selfish notion. It's drilled into our heads. From infancy, through TV, and school.
And it's built into the institutions. That's the way the corporate structure works. (And, of course, corporations are the dominant institutions in our society. So, our society will indeed reflect those very narrow values.)
But, again, corporations have to serve selfish and short-term interests. That's why they're exceedingly frightening.

[russtafa]

guys i don't really like to sound this paranoid but i think most governments have the tiger by the tail with these corporations and the tiger is far to strong for them and is quite capable of turning around and ripping them to pieces

[Stavros]

So, Russtafa, too big to fail means nothing? Corporations are one part of the capitalist landscape, of late 19th century origin. On the one hand they becone indispensable when they are producing and marketing strategic products, on the other hand they are given power by a decision of government to allow free enterprise, and they do pay taxes, even if it can be calculated they are but a small % of their overall profits; and if the business of government is business, why shouldn't corporations have wealth and power? We don't live in communist societies, and I don't see many people slating Steve Jobs as a capitalist -which he was- and corporate magaphone -which he was. So, suddenly, we have the acceptable face of capitalism because we all have iPods, but the unacceptable face of capitalism in Rex Tillerson because Exxon puts the gas in your car??

[russtafa]

So, Russtafa, too big to fail means nothing? Corporations are one part of the capitalist landscape, of late 19th century origin. On the one hand they becone indispensable when they are producing and marketing strategic products, on the other hand they are given power by a decision of government to allow free enterprise, and they do pay taxes, even if it can be calculated they are but a small % of their overall profits; and if the business of government is business, why shouldn't corporations have wealth and power? We don't live in communist societies, and I don't see many people slating Steve Jobs as a capitalist -which he was- and corporate magaphone -which he was. So, suddenly, we have the acceptable face of capitalism because we all have , but the unacceptable face of capitalism in Rex Tillerson because Exxon puts the gas in your car??

not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

[trish]

How would a CEO ever get his thoughts to paper if he didn't dictate???

[Stavros]

not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

Any practical examples you can give, Russtafa?

[russtafa]

not when they start to dictate how they want a government to behave

Any practical examples you can give, Russtafa?

yeah cheap labour being brought from overseas for the mining companies by our great government when we have unemployed here.if something don't stink over that one