[grassroots1]

The one child policy is not an environmentalist law, it's a law designed to keep population down for other reasons. China actually has some of the worst examples of environmental degradation in the world because it's authoritarian, leaving no recourse for action and little potential for change.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't see how corporatism and environmentalism are compatible, unless it has hopes to unify the world.

We don't have any explicit intentions of conquering every square metre of land on the earth, so in fact we can only administer the land we own, and give moral, intellectual, and material support, to groups in other regions who eel the same as we do.

Ultimately that is generally for the best anyway, because each ethnie should know best how to protect its own environment once it assumes control over its own state and makes it ascendant.

But it is precisely because the people of the world already have much control over their governments that it's nearly impossible to solve environmental problems. It's no accident that the nation with a 1 child policy is authoritarian.

I totally disagree, because - as Grassroots said - it is precisely authoritarian capitalism that is destroying China's environment. Merely being authoritarian is not some sort of magic bullet.

[Chill]

it is precisely authoritarian capitalism that is destroying China's environment.

I don't think so. If the government does not want to protect the environment, are we counting on the industries themselves to do that? Companies do not regulate themselves and only government can do that. The more power the government has, the easier to regulate if they want to.

The problem in China is because the government didn't want to regulate in exchange for economic development. But once they find out it's going too far, as they do now, they will regulate it. It is not the authoritarian capitalism that is to be blamed for the pollution. Authoritarian capitalism is always more effective than liberal capitalism, in terms of protecting the environment, if the will of protecting the environment from the government is the same. (since they don't face the pressure from the industry. For example, much of the cause of the subprime crisis is that the government failed to regulate the financial sector because the government is not strong enough and they rely on the support from Wall Street.)

[Rei Murasame]

The problem in China is because the government didn't want to regulate in exchange for economic development.

But who and what was it that ensured that outcome?

Authoritarian capitalism is always more effective than liberal capitalism, in terms of protecting the environment, if the will of protecting the environment from the government is the same.

But why would the state have a will protect the environment if it is authoritarian capitalist? The whims and needs of companies (whether they are state-owned or not) would actually be determining the policy with no real input from other organisations anyway.

[Daktoria]

That's the problem of our world, is trying to pursue some kind of sustainability while there are power plays going on. That's why the unification of the world, or some level of cooperation between nations, is inevitable if we have hopes of actually confronting this problem. Ultimately these power plays are games of the elite, which is why the people of the world need to take control of their own governments. There's no other option as far as I can see.

So I agree with you, I don't see how corporatism and environmentalism are compatible, unless it has hopes to unify the world.

As long as there's hierarchy, inequality will yield to it. Grand unification won't yield sustainability either since people will yearn to subdivide for attention.

Even then, sustainability depends upon the goals you seek to establish. Again, as long as there's hierarchy, inequality will yield disagreement.

Globalism cannot succeed because different people have different perspectives on what qualifies as natural, normal, standard, practical, etc. At the very least, the elite will provoke conflict by staging disagreement just to generate political capital and stay on top of the world.

If you get rid of the elite, the next group underneath will take over ad infinitum. You need to dissolve hierarchy itself to provide peace.

[Chill]

But who and what was it that ensured that outcome?

Yes, the government.

But why would the state have a will protect the environment if it is authoritarian capitalist?

Are you asking why people have a will not to kill, rape, rob, steal if there is no law to restrict them?

The whims and needs of companies (whether they are state-owned or not) would actually be determining the policy with no real input from other organisations anyway.

The companies in China have never ever had the ability to determine the policy. The ultimate goal of a government is to maximize the general benefit of the country(normally) and the ultimate goal of a company is to maximize its profit. This is why you want the power to be grasped in hands of the government rather than the companies. You have a chance to make it right counting on the government behaving normally. But you are doomed to let the companies make the decision.
If you want to ask why the government will want to benefit the country it represent..., why will people want to destroy their own country?

[grassroots1]

I don't think so. If the government does not want to protect the environment, are we counting on the industries themselves to do that? Companies do not regulate themselves and only government can do that. The more power the government has, the easier to regulate if they want to.

It's not as simple as whether a central government desires it. From what I've learned and read, environmental degradation in China isn't only the result of the lack of motivation of the central government, it's the result of corruption and bribery at every level of local government and the bureaucracy. This is why people have no one to complain to, this is why the environmental degradation continues for so long, and this is why the Chinese people will inevitably have to fight for their inclusion into the system, as they are the ones who primarily suffer from the environmental degradation we're talking about. For central party members, the impact is either too far off for them to care, or they don't care about the impact, which is why we haven't seen any action to correct the problem. I suppose the potential is there for an authoritarian system to exist that does consider the environment, but that's certainly not what exists in China today.

The companies in China have never ever had the ability to determine the policy.

They might not have the ability to determine policy, but they have the ability to fly under the radar by cozying up to one government official or another.

The ultimate goal of a government is to maximize the general benefit of the country

The ultimate goal of an authoritarian government is to perpetuate itself.

Globalism cannot succeed because different people have different perspectives on what qualifies as natural, normal, standard, practical, etc. At the very least, the elite will provoke conflict by staging disagreement just to generate political capital and stay on top of the world.

I'm not saying I support the image of a fascist global government, only that I believe there will need to be international cooperation if the environmental problem is to be confronted effectively.

[Chill]

From what I've learned and read, environmental degradation in China isn't only the result of the lack of motivation of the central government, it's the result of corruption and bribery at every level of local government and the bureaucracy.

Exactly. But again, it is not the authoritarian capitalism that is to be blamed for this. It is the corruption of the authoritarian capitalism, making it more like liberal, that is to be blamed. You have shown how bad things can turn out to be when government officials collude with the rich bosses of the companies, which is no way evitable in liberal capitalism.
The authoritarian capitalism is still not a perfect authoritarian one. Officials are still influenced by the companies, in a illegal way rather than the aboveboard way happening between the president and the CEOs(which is a comfort).
This is exactly why authoritarian capitalism is needed.

[grassroots1]

The authoritarian capitalism is still not a perfect authoritarian one. Officials are still influenced by the companies, in a illegal way rather than the aboveboard way happening between the president and the CEOs.

This does appear to be the problem, but to me there is some hope of change in "liberal capitalism," as we can see from Scandinavian and Western European nations whose governments appear to have a greater degree of autonomy from the private sector than the American government. In "authoritarian capitalism," that hope for change lies in an enlightened despot and I'm not willing to place bets on some noble and high-minded people cutting throats to reach the top of that political system. It seems kind of against their nature, does it not? Basically what I'm saying is that I don't see hope in the purity of an authoritarian system, and I see more hope in the democratic control of government by the people and the maintenance of civil liberties. I think this is what is missing in China, and given the events of 1989, so do many Chinese.

[Amanita]

Globalism cannot succeed because different people have different perspectives on what qualifies as natural, normal, standard, practical, etc. At the very least, the elite will provoke conflict by staging disagreement just to generate political capital and stay on top of the world.

Nationalism succeeded in standardising what different perspectives different regions had and regionalism succeeded in standardising what different perspectives different tribes had. Globalism is the next 'logical' step.

If you get rid of the elite, the next group underneath will take over ad infinitum. You need to dissolve hierarchy itself to provide peace.

Same as yesterday's argument. How will you dissolve hierarchy without creating your own hierarchy? How will you fight power if no one else has power? Yours is not a political solution, but an idealistic, individualistic stand.

[Rei Murasame]

Are you asking why people have a will not to kill, rape, rob, steal if there is no law to restrict them?

No, I'm asking why you expect capitalism not to try to use the arm of the state to aid in its desire to escape consequences for polluting.

If you want to ask why the government will want to benefit the country it represent..., why will people want to destroy their own country?

That's what I'd like to know, since as we can see the pollution still went on unabated for ages.

You need to dissolve hierarchy itself to provide peace.

Oh really? And how are you proposing that should be done?

[Daktoria]

I'm not saying I support the image of a fascist global government, only that I believe there will need to be international cooperation if the environmental problem is to be confronted effectively.

By definition of internationalism though, that means you will have different perspectives on what qualifies as proper environmental applications.

In order to circumvent this, you would need universal thinking, but nations are particularist, not universalist, constructs.

The only way to get around this is if elitism takes precedent over nationalism such that elites' loyalties to their own nations become facades, but that would risk periodic theatrics since elites would know they're vulnerable and would fear losing their positions.

Alternatively, even a populist internationalist end around would involve certain populists becoming the liaisons of their communities to other communities. It would create a mid-managerial elitist class.

To get everyone on the same page, you would have to dissolve nations altogether such that everyone's living the same lifestyle. Diversity would yield stagnation and conflict over upper echelon positions and opportunities in a sustainability dedicated world.

Want to achieve great things? Then you better work the political machine in order to qualify for subsidies. Fail? Too bad, there's not enough space for you. Every culture only gets its fair share of spots.

[grassroots1]

By definition of internationalism though, that means you will have different perspectives on what qualifies as proper environmental applications.

By definition of humanity, there will be plurality. That doesn't necessarily immobilize the system.

[Daktoria]

Nationalism succeeded in standardising what different perspectives different regions had and regionalism succeeded in standardising what different perspectives different tribes had. Globalism is the next 'logical' step.

This is disputable. Self-determination isn't ever something that's set in stone when it comes to group identities. People wouldn't take pride in their regional and local associations if standardizing was absolute.

Same as yesterday's argument. How will you dissolve hierarchy without creating your own hierarchy? How will you fight power if no one else has power? Yours is not a political solution, but an idealistic, individualistic stand.

One person at a time through direct individual engagement.

Like I said yesterday about the difference between death and dying, sustainability is meaningless if people are sustained through torture.

By definition of humanity, there will be plurality. That doesn't necessarily immobilize the system.

It does when plurality is particularist (as in the case of nationalism and internationalism). Particularist thinkers (whether absolutists or relativists) are not openminded to the paths of others. They demand assimilation, and those who defy assimilation are treated as potentially hostile aliens.

[Rei Murasame]

One person at a time through direct individual engagement.

What are the odds that this will actually have the effect you are hoping it will have? What are you going to do, go around the world telling everyone to join in your anarcho-capitalist revolution? What happens when you reach Hank Paulson's office?

[Daktoria]

It's not about the odds Rei.

It's about the lack of value in succeeding the other way.

Perhaps you can succeed more likely through collectivist methods, but if you do so, you degrade the identity of people because you've ignored the internal character of mentality. Therefore, society can no longer claim to exist because bypassing the mind has made relationships questionable.

A relates to B.

B relates to C (D, E, F, G, H, I, etc.)

That does not mean A relates to C (D, E, F, G, H, I, etc.).

[Chill]

whose governments appear to have a greater degree of autonomy from the private sector than the American government.

In "authoritarian capitalism," that hope for change lies in an enlightened despot

No there is no such thing as a despot even in China. The party simply does not do what Hu Jintao says. There is a group of people whose vote is equal to each other and Hu is simply a speaker for the party.

I see more hope in the democratic control of government by the people and the maintenance of civil liberties.

I don't think there is any thing involved with the democracy here. What we talk about is the relationship between capitalists and the government. People can still have a great extent of freedom and human rights when the government, rather than the companies, control the economy of the country.

I think this is what is missing in China, and given the events of 1989, so do many Chinese.

Yes, democracy is something missing in China. I believe Premier Wen Jiabao also agrees with me in this. But the fact is no one can easily change the situation. It's such a big country with so many people. Any change has the possibility to arise social instability. A good strategy is if you are not sure of the side effects of a medicine to cure your disease, you prefer not to take it unless you are going to die in a moment. I don't think China is going to die in a moment in the current system.

And I believe we almost have the same opinion on this issue.

[Rei Murasame]

Perhaps you can succeed more likely through collectivist methods, but if you do so, you degrade the identity of people because you've ignored the internal character of mentality.

By your own logic they in fact consent to it anyway, and so nothing is lost.

Why is it that magically your deontological libertarism approach is 'not degrading' to people's identities, but everything else is?

In all instances they 'consent' (whatever that means) and a historic bloc is formed. The real issue here seems to be that you actually interpret anything outside the neoliberal hegemony as being 'degrading' (a word widely understood to be bad), because you are analysing the world from the position of an upper-middle class person in a developed western country.

In fact, this is why in another thread when you asked me to give a justification for action that was not normative, I refused to do so, because that would be ridiculous in my world view.

[Chill]

No, I'm asking why you expect capitalism not to try to use the arm of the state to aid in its desire to escape consequences for polluting.

Because protecting the environment is consistent with their desire. Long term, not short term.

That's what I'd like to know, since as we can see the pollution still went on unabated for ages.

No, it simply doesn't. The pollution has been there, but has been abated for ages.

[Chill]

A relates to B.

B relates to C (D, E, F, G, H, I, etc.)

That does not mean A relates to C (D, E, F, G, H, I, etc.).

What?