Bare with the post (you will eventually see how it’s related)… I think the war expansion currently underway (Obama’s USA vs. Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.) are about control. This is a control that some say will transition towards a wider WW3 & of which an aim is to do just that, kill competitors. It may not be yet but, wait.

When one of the polar competing super-powers physically enters in retaliation (Russia? China? etc.); escalation will be matched by Western ‘allies’ because the USD$/petro dollar relationship will be challenged. Don’t be fooled, this is what keeps our currencies in higher value giving us high stds of living & quality of life. No oil-$ relationship (of the current magnitude) no social democracy. Unions & social movements are out of touch with what dictates the very lineaments of what feeds their pocket books. Read my earlier posts. The dislocations are profound. Back to war. Why? How on earth did we get here?

Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan 40,000 during the 1st month honeymoon in 2009 when the media generally ignored it. And now he says he’s going to remove 5 & 35K troops (June 2011). So…. hypocrisy comes to mind. And to think Obama got a Nobel Peace prize for this & expanding the number of wars & troops, US military bases with the social engineering and manufactured consent through the academic/military/industrial/media complex… incredible! Why is this relevant?

Side note: Just how much is the media ignoring?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/12-things-that-the-mainstream-media-is-being-strangely-quiet-about-right-now

Still don’t believe you’re being manipulated?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUFZa_n_jjU
http://www.oil-price.net/

When the results of an action conveniently suit a hypothesis that appears to have little to do with those initial results, you must ask yourself, who benefits? And by how much? I’m not suggesting I know the answer absolutely but, decades of research of taught me that the world is not such an innocent place & so-called conspiracies are not as limited as many would always like to believe. After all, those who stand to gain, will operate with others who stand to gain in unison.

Again I don’t know but, that which is likely… if it is always benefiting the same people in subsequent generational downloading; then just how conspiratorial is it? Perhaps more purposeful than the media industry they own are telling us. If they own the cover, why wouldn’t the cover be controlled? Who knows… devil’s advocate for you.

So here we are, you are saying that we ought to kill 50% of the population? How exactly do you propose this? Through honesty? Through war? Through domestic gender-cide (the result of the abortion industry), killing the elderly? Seriously, what are you saying, that this ‘culling’ is humanitarian? You sound Neo-Malthusian. Would you be willing to remove your environmentally taxing consumption? Perhaps remove your pension? Your health care? Your heating or cooling? Perhaps you travel by air? Just how much are you willing to give up? Would you be willing to sacrifice your life for the remaining ones on earth? Because if you are, I might be able to buy what you’re saying. Actions reveal more than words. The boy who cried wolf was full of shit.

You used the term ‘wealth distribution’. This is often a very misunderstood term. Mostly, it is an empty term. (See Herbert Marcuse on how he uses it with his Marxist leaning – clever but misleading). If you’re not convinced, try Saul Alinsky method. Back to the point. It is not a pie that has finite resources or money. You ignore efficiency, choice, savings, self-sufficiency & how these can be achieved without the command economy you pine for. Your pre-suppositions of wealth & resource distribution is highly misleading if not rather naive & simplistic. Sorry, I don’t mean to offend. I’m happy to discuss why but, if it is not a decoy, please advise.

On your side, it is possible to achieve isotropic values through fungible currency exchange only to a point. People have different abilities. Discouraging the productive to compensate for others won’t last long where we’re going:
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/03/01/a-failed-system-the-world-crisis-of-capitalist-globalization-and-its-impact-on-china

Just how much does this look likely?
If you can enjoy the maths:
http://www.zerohedge.com
http://www.shadowstats.com

Sorry for delay, I’m not always in town. I’d like to say I was refreshed by your intelligent reply. It’s so rare these days. I really liked the use of your references.

I didn’t even realize I used the word libertarian in my entire string… so I did a search. I found it once as an adjective to describe rights & freedoms generally because of the power of the individual. That’s it. That is not to say that the power of people is not great – it is. Although, your somewhat anti-personal freedom approach is somewhat disconcerting. I may have this wrong? Please advise if I didn’t quite get that. It’s just that you believe that social ecology demands that people must follow & obey… reading between your lines.. I think.

Legal frameworks of countries ideally have a healthy balance between freedoms and social adherence. Just as do political subscriptions. This is especially the case in their moderation outside of your rigid definitions demanding a narrow interpretation of how we view the world. I.E., to use your words, “monotheistic/enlightenment tradition is at odds with your principles”.

You said, “I gotta follow orders, you see I’ve got no choice. The world is a social carve-up. Binary logic necessitates you gotta take sides!”

Yes but, humans are not binary and the world is not that simple as per my comment intro. So long as you take sides within a system that is as flawed as it is (due largely to central bank controls) then you shouldn’t take sides.

That is because the system has become a massive machine serving few masters. But it is not a defense of the contrary. Collectivism has the worst track record at respecting the vary lives of its members.

You said, “Adherence to a social ecology is our only hope”. Yes, social ecology is a hope, just not the only one.

Bar the considerations, I agree with the sentiment of a lot of what you said.

I gotta follow orders, you see I’ve got no choice.
The world is a social carve-up.
Binary logic necessitates you gotta take sides!

Your Libertarian logic has so many flaws.
Why do you think that individualistic and diverse human views generally coalesce, aggregate and eventually evolve into a dominant point of view or a master discourse.
Why do you think only the Libertarian mind can remain outside of this inevitable universal aggregation.
You could argue that libertarians are forcibly co-opted into the clutches of the social elites, but ultimately, this further reinforce the logic that the world is a binary social see-saw.
Why? Language? Limitations of the human brain?

The fact that individuals can remain aloof of these social realities but still affect change, without becoming part of the system, is fanciful.

This is it. It is systems which affects change, which regulate the corrupt. The wisdom of the crowd? Well maybe, but needs to be regulated and this has to be performed socially, hence the need for democratic governance…. no escape!

Now, the rub is, what is the philosophical underpinning of democracy. You see, you share your libertarian mindset with some esteemed company: Descartes, Locke et al.
For me, as an advocate of Social Ecology (Murray Bookchin etc.) I struggle with crazy stuff.
Descartes believed in the mind/matter dichotomy. Only the human mind within known logic is of: Substance (God) and all else on the planet has no intrinsic value and thus can be objectivised. Clearly the origins of this logic is to be found within monotheism.
Likewise, your libertarian mindset elevates your privileged position above all else. But don’t you see that the monotheistic/enlightenment tradition is at odds with your principles – your philosophy originates in the Divine Right of Human Kings!
Ahhh, George III would be proud.

Real democracy is human social evolution. Ecological evolution is of continuity, where the human brain is a product of species evolution (and adaptation and maladaptation). And this is where the human animal (as a subjective agent) cannot be divorced from other animals inevitable agency. Treating all else as an instrument of human gain and as objects to appease our own ego and grandeur and position in the social reality, is obscene. Surely, if we are
‘categorically’ different (which ultimately makes not sense), it is still in relation to the origin of our ancestry, as far as we know.

So this is the point. Libertarians truly desire subjective teleology i.e. the goal of the individual should not be undermined, either through being objectified and conceptualised by eg. Kleptocratic Investment Banking ideology(reducing humans to neoclassical mathematical economic models); or be reduced by other subjective agents such as Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon. Understood.

Problem is, libertarian philosophy doesn’t facilitate this. Libertarians ultimately embrace social tyranny and objectification. Where’s the regulation!

And on AGW, in a sense i agree with you.
Certainly global warming causing ecological affect/effects – (see the extinction rates of some species against the background rate in the fossil record). But, some environmental lobby/groups are as self-serving as the Banksters on Wall Street.

Adherence to a social ecology is our only hope. Without fellow subjects/fellow persons, cooperating and competing, life isn’t worth much at all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Wirbtf6Bw

As time goes on, we are discovering that there are a lot more political arguments for economic control over the world economy against the will of the people. The IPCC is largely a political organization with command control economy aspirations. This is in direct contradiction to human rights & freedoms. The IPCC’s strategy leaves absolutely no choice for the individual or country.

But that is another topic entirely.

I was arguing that those who say they are behind Climate Change and then illustrate that in practice they are more about activism where they profit from the proceeds of that activism are arguably hypocritical. And thus, couldn’t in all sincerely be trusted by anyone with above average healthy skepticism. Which I suppose may of the defenders are partisan believers to their political masters. They seem to obey like mindless soldiers.

I’ve lost faith in politics. I believe in personal action. When I see it people’s personal lives where it cost them personally: I tend to find them more credible. Perhaps it’s just me but, the political silver tongues are full of it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/manns-hockey-stick-climategate-and-foi-in-a-nutshell/

GHG: Green House Gases (the ones that contribute to Climate Change). The argument is classically around the 1Tr ton mark accumulating for 2050 & whether the anthropometric contribution is closer to 1% or 100% of the problem. And dear future attackers of this description, this is just a small truncated, yes, very short description of the topic.

Yes doris, I was just stirring the pot (as I stated) regarding poverty vs. GHS contribution. My point about that post was that many of what apologists advocate contradict their actions.

There is also a question of what is poverty because many say they are poor and or that they don’t contribute yet in reality, consuming a social service, cashing a welfare cheque, cashing a pension or union cheque are contribute just as much as higher disposable income that results in the same: consumption. And that is related to the carbon cycle: extraction, manufacture, usage, pollution, disposal & sometimes contamination.

I suggested actions that people could do to reduce their environmental impact, such as consume less generally (meat, driving, purchases, social program consumption etc.) in addition to economic.

I concentrated on the economic because of DeChristopher’s arguments and the general topic of this article. It is also the misinterpretation of economics and they way people view their own personal finances that underlines the problems we encounter.

More later, must go. Good points Doris.