|Dear William Dwyer,|
I admit, I'm not that intelligent compared to people on this thread (I left school with average grades), and my grammar and spelling is poor, but it would have been more benevolent to simply write; Mike check your grammar and spelling before you post. Instead it was presented (I perceive) as an attempt to publicly belittle me. Anyway...
Which is the fault of the free market??No, I wasn't trying to portray that. This discussion I suppose is confusing. We seem to jumping between an utopian situation; where there is only libertarian law enforcements, and economic structures, and reality.
On a side note I read that kind of drop of context a lot from pro-market sites a lot, they write about the evils of taxation, welfare state, minimum wage, etc.
But I don't really read many (remember I wrote - many) recommendations to use private currencies, ie. e-gold, as protest against fiat currency and central banking (I got that from an anti-globablisation website). According to the free market economists articles I've read (I've just begun, and I find it difficult to get into the lingo), central banking and fiat currency is a major contributor to economic stagnation. The only free market advocates I've read (I repeat I've just begun) who openly stated that the concentration of wealth, is helped by fiat policies. Taking this to be true then, the campaigns of against minimum wage and corporate taxation being more important than, central banking and fiat policies harms the free-market argument of greater prosperity for the poor.
If central banking gives unfair power to pressure groups, ie. corporations and commercial banks (I'm learning that the policy of fiat allows them to create more fiat money www.theclassactionsuit.com ), then surely if minimum wage, labor rights etc are dropped then it will result in the 'socialism for the rich/corporations' that people perceive capitalism to be.
Also you have clarified your view that the culture of the Ogoni people isn't respected only industrialized nations are, thanks for making that clear. I however believe as long as the culture isn't violating people's rights, then it should be allowed to be free from industrialization if it chooses to.
quoteLet me ask you as question, Skinner: Is it okay to forbid the mining of oil, because some environmentalists don't want to see nature despoiled, if doing so causes people to freeze to death in the winter, because they can't get enough energy to heat their homes, or die of heat stroke in the summer because they can't afford air conditioning, or die before they get to the hospital in an emergency, because they can't afford the cost of transportation?
Good question. Our current context is that companies could spend more money on recycling (plastic bags are given out for single items at supermarkets etc), and building alternative fuels (in Britain there is some good publicity for bio-diesel, fuels made from recycled cooking oil), and building things that last. Before I get flamed, I agree technological advancement has helped environmental concerns, mp3 players and the internet have shrunk the need for non-biodegradable cd's, and packaging.
quoteIn the short term, such development also creates jobs for local inhabitants, like the Ogonis, and raises the level of their real wages, enabling them to buy more of what they want and need.
Most Ogoni., and people of Nigeria want Oil companies out, they have consistently, along with the government, violated their rights, and environment.
quoteSkinner, your entire approach is "conservative" in the worst and most retrograde meaning of the term, namely, the preservation of heritage and tradition at the expense of any improvement in human living conditions. You want to deny people in other parts of the world the opportunity to break free from primitive, economically backward societies, because of some allegedly intrinsic virtue in the preservation of their existing "cultures." If you had your way, the wealth that we currently enjoy here in the West would not have been allowed to come into existence. As it is, you want to prevent a similar development from taking place in other parts of the world.
No, I advocate (I unfortunately didn't make this clear), respecting the wishes of a largely peaceful culture, and increasing recycling, and alternative fuel development in order to sustain our lifestyle, instead of relying on crude oil. There appear to be many reasons to advocate that idea of ecologists, not just to sustain the environment. The west wouldn't have to rely on unstable regions, and governments (venezuela, current oil problem). We wouldn't have to go to armed conflict over oil. (I'm referring to articles by the ARI that protecting/reclaiming US oil interests is a good premise to go to war on).
And much to the pleasure of you guys, and conservatives, it would shut up many environmentalists ;).
(Edited by Mr Mike Skinner on 3/31, 6:54am)