The Story of Stuff: One More Time

[dannno]

Ok, so this has been posted before and a lot of people here really hate this video.. I'm actually going to see this woman give a free lecture tonight so I thought I'd post it again with some explanation. If you started watching or viewed the film before and hated it, please read my explanation and consider watching it again. I don't endorse all of the views in the film, but like many other films which cannot be whole-heatedly endorsed by the liberty movement it still contains a LOT of great information that is not presented in such an easy to understand way elsewhere.. therefore it is highly valuable as long as you are able to ignore some of the places she discusses our 'over-consumption', although Peter Schiff also says we over-consume so I'm not sure why that is such a big leap for some of us to make that liberals would be concerned with it as well, although for slightly different reasons.

I watched it again recently and recalled that the reason why so many hate it is because in the beginning she goes on a lot about how we are using too many resources and we need to cut back and to some, seeing it from a leftist perspective makes it sound like we need to use force to do that and so I can see why many people have bad feelings about the video..though I'm not convinced that is her intention, I think she is more about education in this regard. However she does mention a couple of her liberal pet causes, briefly... but when you combine a lot of what she is saying with what Peter Schiff says regarding our artificially driven consumption it begins to make a lot more sense.

Sooo.... If you watch the entire thing, with an open mind, there is A LOT of really good incredible insight into our debt and consumer driven society, why and how it exists, beyond what Peter Schiff talks about. Just because she might not have everything right in regards to what the earth can bear and what we consume doesn't mean that a large portion of the video isn't extremely informative and useful to get a better glimpse of how our global corporatist system works and what it is able to get away with.

Since I STILL have not seen it presented this well elsewhere, I urge you to watch this 20 minute presentation and incorporate the ideas into a more pro-liberty platform.


http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[squarepusher]

thanks danno!

[squarepusher]

she says 50% of the budget goes to the military, is that true?

[Deborah K]

"The government's job is to watch out for us - to take care of us. That's their JOB!"

Huh? What?

[Deborah K]

Money as Debt covers the same concept with regard to a linear process in a finite world. Much better vid imo.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Good video. I saw it a couple years ago but its still a good vid. We do consume to much shit. Imagine if China consumed like we do how fast we would see our finite resources dwindle. It also points out how shallow and materialistic most Americans are.

[dannno]

she says 50% of the budget goes to the military, is that true?

Could be, I'm not as concerned with her specific statistics as I am with the concept she talks about regarding our global consumption model.

[dannno]

"The government's job is to watch out for us - to take care of us. That's their JOB!"

Huh? What?

They are supposed to protect us from fraud, theft, coercion and from outside military threats, right? So yes, it is their job to protect us in that regard.

Our monetary system is fraud. The FDA which tells us it is ok to buy toxic pillows is based on fraud. She's really not THAT far off in some of these statements, but she certainly doesn't hit the nail on the head in every regard.

[Ekrub]

If it was a little more objective I would be OK with it. My problem with this is my English teacher using the story of stuff as our curiculum for an entire semester and making us write papers, referencing the story of stuff, on why we need to be more "green." I can't ever get that sour taste out of my mouth, and watching this brings me back to some of the garbage I had to write for the class.

Now, I am all for protecting the environment (and I even believe that it should be a conservative position, due to property rights) But government force, taxes, and this green religion is what turns me off to the whole environmental movement.

[Deborah K]

They are supposed to protect us from fraud, theft, coercion and from outside military threats, right? So yes, it is their job to protect us in that regard.

Our monetary system is fraud. The FDA which tells us it is ok to buy toxic pillows is based on fraud. She's really not THAT far off in some of these statements, but she certainly doesn't hit the nail on the head in every regard.

I agree they are supposed to protect our rights, but they aren't supposed to "take care of us". She lost me there. That statement belies the overall message for me.

[dannno]

Money as Debt covers the same concept with regard to a linear process in a finite world. Much better vid imo.

But it doesn't talk about our global model of consumption like she does, that is one of the key parts of the video that is really important to understand.

Our US consumption based global monetary system does in fact hurt poor people in third world countries.. not because we are free and need to be controlled, not because we need to stop producing goods or buying goods, but because of the fraudulent banking system and because of our over-reaching military which goes to these countries and forces them into debt and ultimately enslaves their population.

There are some on this board who say sweatshops are good... well, great, they are better than what the people have.. but WHY is that? It is because their land is stolen by global corporations first, that is why they are forced into the big cities to work in sweatshops. Global corporations don't respect property rights until the property belongs to them. There is a link that many libertarians miss, that is part of the reason this video is so important.

[dannno]

That statement belies the overall message for me.

That's the problem, you need to understand that you are going to disagree with some things fundamentally, that was the entire point of the OP.. but you still haven't taken the time to see or pay attention to the GOOD things in the video which are not presented elsewhere that I've ever seen.

[dannno]

If it was a little more objective I would be OK with it. My problem with this is my English teacher using the story of stuff as our curiculum for an entire semester and making us write papers, referencing the story of stuff, on why we need to be more "green." I can't ever get that sour taste out of my mouth, and watching this brings me back to some of the garbage I had to write for the class.

Now, I am all for protecting the environment (and I even believe that it should be a conservative position, due to property rights) But government force, taxes, and this green religion is what turns me off to the whole environmental movement.

But none of the stuff you mentioned is related to what she talks about during the majority of the presentation, which is the global monetary and production systems. That's what I'm trying to get people to focus on here, but some people can't get past the beginning of the film that focuses on consumption and why should reduce it in order to pay attention and get anything out of the good parts later on..

You have to get beyond your cognitive dissonance, which will rightly occur, in order to pay attention to the parts that are really important.

I've always tried to learn how to get beyond cognitive dissonance so I can understand other people's views. Why? Because most people have good views and bad views. If you can relate their good views to liberty oriented views, you will be more successful than if you simply try to destroy their bad views, because they won't have it, they have cognitive dissonance too!

In this case, getting beyond cognitive dissonance allows us to educate ourselves because she has done some really great research into how our society has been manipulated into this debt based consumption mess.

[Ekrub]

But it doesn't talk about our global model of consumption like she does, that is one of the key parts of the video that is really important to understand.

Our US consumption based global monetary system does in fact hurt poor people in third world countries.. not because we are free and need to be controlled, not because we need to stop producing goods or buying goods, but because of the fraudulent banking system and because of our over-reaching military which goes to these countries and forces them into debt and ultimately enslaves their population.

There are some on this board who say sweatshops are good... well, great, they are better than what the people have.. but WHY is that? It is because their land is stolen by global corporations first, that is why they are forced into the big cities to work in sweatshops. Global corporations don't respect property rights until the property belongs to them. There is a link that many libertarians miss, that is part of the reason this video is so important.

They aren't being forced into sweatshops. They work at sweatshops because it's better pay for less work.

[JacobG18]

YouTube - Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY&feature=channel)

YouTube - Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 2 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY&feature=channel)

YouTube - Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 3 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8&feature=channel)

YouTube - Story of Stuff, The Critique Part 4 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y&feature=channel)

[Ekrub]

But none of the stuff you mentioned is related to what she talks about during the majority of the presentation, which is the global monetary and production systems.

No, but there is an liberal "green" undertone. Like I said, I think it would be better if it was more objective.

[Ekrub]

You have to get beyond your cognitive dissonance, which will rightly occur, in order to pay attention to the parts that are really important.

lol I get what she is saying, and I agree to an extent. But all I was saying was that my experience with the video is tainted by a liberal professor and the undertone of the film. That is all.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Good video. I saw it a couple years ago but its still a good vid. We do consume to much shit. Imagine if China consumed like we do how fast we would see our finite resources dwindle. It also points out how shallow and materialistic most Americans are.

This is a by-product of our monetary system. It incentivizes the sorts of behavior you are describing. Change our monetary system, and the culture changes with it, or I suppose the culture needs to change the monetary system? Egg, chicken...what? :D

[Ekrub]

YouTube - The World Economy is an Island (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWpGm9POwQ)

The second half is a Ron Paul clip.... I have never seen that speech before. Anybody have any clue where/when that clip came from?

[dannno]

They aren't being forced into sweatshops. They work at sweatshops because it's better pay for less work.

They are FORCED into sweatshops in that they are being FORCED off of THEIR land first. Fact. That is anti-property rights, period. Their NEW choices are limited to working for almost nothing on somebody else's farm, or working at a sweatshop for higher wages. The problem with the classic libertarian argument regarding sweatshops is that it ignores the fact that their land is being stolen first.

The fact that the sweatshops exist and provide jobs for them is not inherently bad, the bad part is what happens first.

You should really try and watch the film again, this is explained in pretty plain terms and is during the most important part of the film.

[dannno]

No, but there is an liberal "green" undertone. Like I said, I think it would be better if it was more objective.

Yes, and I WANT there to be a video that explains this stuff using a liberty oriented platform.. but as long as a movement ignore the video and the good information that it contains, how will that educational tool ever be created?? Because right now it doesn't exist.

[emazur]

she says 50% of the budget goes to the military, is that true?

In point 3 of this video, Former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts states that more than half of the income tax goes to war and military
YouTube - Paul Craig Roberts explains what's wrong with an income tax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSrX_TVDG2Y)

BTW, I like Story of Stuff but know there are flaws

[dannno]

critique videos

None of those can debunk any of the amazing ideas she presents regarding our global production and monetary systems, because much of her presentation is absolutely spot on, or heading in the right direction. I am quite sure that a lot of the statistics regarding consumption that she cites can be refuted.

I urge you to read the comments in this thread and watch the film, otherwise you are missing out on information that is not presented in any sort of liberty oriented material, or anywhere else that I've seen in such a great format for that matter.

[Ekrub]

Yes, and I WANT there to be a video that explains this stuff using a liberty oriented platform.. but as long as a movement ignore the video and the good information that it contains, how will that educational tool ever be created?? Because right now it doesn't exist.

The video that I posted touches on our consumption, and how the world would be better off if we "weren't on the island"

And as far as sweatshops stealing land... can you provide some links of companies stealing land from third world countries? I (maybe naively) was under the impression that the companies bought the land from the third world governments/ private owners.

[dannno]

The video that I posted touches on our consumption, and how the world would be better off if we "weren't on the island"

And as far as sweatshops stealing land... can you provide some links of companies stealing land from third world countries? I (maybe naively) was under the impression that the companies bought the land from the third world governments/ private owners.

Bold: Correct

Red: Incorrect


It's really the modus operandi of global banks/corporations everywhere, in all developing countries. It happens through political corruption. I can't think of a developing country where indigenous people's land WASN'T stolen.

If people are living on their land that they have lived on for hundreds of years, and the government comes in and says "oh, you don't have a deed, we just sold your land the Corporation X, GTFO"..

Why does the government own the land? That sounds like communism. If somebody is homesteading on land that they have lived on for generations, why is it the government's land to sell?

[CUnknown]

she says 50% of the budget goes to the military, is that true?

Yes, this is true.

And I love this video. Yes, it's from a "green" perspective. That doesn't make it any less valid. Resource depletion and toxin accumulation on a finite planet is just a fact of modern life.

It reminds me very much of bacteria growing on a petri dish. Lag Phase (pre-industrial revolution) --> Log Phase (industrial revolution to today) --> Stationary Phase (today and the near future) --> Death Phase.

Unless technology advances to allow us to transcend the limitations of our current mode of production, I'd say this scenario of stagnation and decline is inevitable. And it's very late in the day, technology needs to advance really quickly to prevent stagnation from setting in. In fact, I'd say it's already set in.

[Deborah K]

In point 3 of this video, Former Assistant Secretary of Treasury Paul Craig Roberts states that more than half of the income tax goes to war and military
YouTube - Paul Craig Roberts explains what's wrong with an income tax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSrX_TVDG2Y)

BTW, I like Story of Stuff but know there are flaws

This is good! Thanks for this.

[BenIsForRon]

My university's YAL showed story of stuff after IOUSA, because they both convey a similar message: our economy has lost all touch with reality.

[dannno]

In fact, it really sucks, but a lot of socialists and communists are that way because they want the PEOPLE to own their land again instead of corporations who steal the land.. That's why a lot of people hate capitalism, because they see it as stealing rather than respecting people's property.. so instead of having property that can be stolen, they want to return the land to the people, which is of course a collective construct.. really they need to learn about our monetary system and respecting property rights, because that is what the real cause of this mess is..

But if you are able to see why these people are confused and what they actually want, it makes it a lot easier to educate them.. because really what they want isn't as different from us as it seems sometimes.

[BenIsForRon]

They definitely need to learn about the monetary system. However, if you're trying to sell them property rights over regulation, that's not going to work. We need both. Environmental regulations are there to deter people from doing the damage to begin with, just like any other law against property theft/damage.

[Deborah K]

In fact, it really sucks, but a lot of socialists and communists are that way because they want the PEOPLE to own their land again instead of corporations who steal the land.. That's why a lot of people hate capitalism, because they see it as stealing rather than respecting people's property.. so instead of having property that can be stolen, they want to return the land to the people, which is of course a collective construct.. really they need to learn about our monetary system and respecting property rights, because that is what the real cause of this mess is..

But if you are able to see why these people are confused and what they actually want, it makes it a lot easier to educate them.. because really what they want isn't as different from us as it seems sometimes.

The definition of socialism and communism is government control over private property. Socialists only want some control while communists want total control and use violence if necessary. Both believe in big government, which is collectivist thinking. All they're doing is substituting corporations with government - same fight - different dog.

[dannno]

They definitely need to learn about the monetary system. However, if you're trying to sell them property rights over regulation, that's not going to work. We need both. Environmental regulations are there to deter people from doing the damage to begin with, just like any other law against property theft/damage.

The problem is that regulations are created by corporations who want to disrespect property rights, so they form an allowable limit to the amount that they are able to pollute.

As Ron Paul has stated many times, environmental regulations came about in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Industry went to government because they were tired of being sued by individual property owners for polluting their land. The government regulations allowed corporations to pollute other people's land rather than limiting their pollution.

If we respected property rights, we would be much more environmentally conscious. Instead we have corporations writing the environmental regulations that allow them to pollute.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

They definitely need to learn about the monetary system. However, if you're trying to sell them property rights over regulation, that's not going to work. We need both. Environmental regulations are there to deter people from doing the damage to begin with, just like any other law against property theft/damage.

You deter property damage (vis a vis pollution), through enforcement of property rights, not regulation. Environmental regulations are the equivalent of Anti-trust laws, where they inculcate corporations and exclude competition. They don't serve any of the function you are attributing to them. In fact, they actively hurt your cause.

[dannno]

The definition of socialism and communism is government control over private property. Socialists only want some control while communists want total control and use violence if necessary. Both believe in big government, which is collectivist thinking. All they're doing is substituting corporations with government - same fight - different dog.

You're talking to me as if I didn't know what those things are, but what I'm doing is I'm giving you the perspective that groups of people who advocate these forms of government, and giving land to the people, etc.. I'm showing you how most of THEM see it. They don't see it as big government forcing everybody to do things, they see it as the government giving back to the people what was once theirs to begin with. They want justice, they want their land back from the corporations who are actually acting more like corporatists/socialists by forcing governments to give them land that they don't own. If you understand their perspective on the situation it is a lot easier to deal with than thinking that all those poor people in developing countries want a tyrannical system and big government, which just isn't true. They just want their land back and to be left alone.. at heart they are more like libertarians, but they don't think that capitalism can provide that freedom and protection that they need, because when they think capitalism they think of a big corporation coming in and using their influence to have the government steal their land.. which is in fact socialism/corporatism..

[Deborah K]

You're talking to me as if I didn't know what those things are, but what I'm doing is I'm giving you the perspective that groups of people who advocate these forms of government, and giving land to the people, etc.. I'm showing you how most of THEM see it. They don't see it as big government forcing everybody to do things, they see it as the government giving back to the people what was once theirs to begin with. If you understand their perspective on the situation it is a lot easier to deal with than thinking that all those poor people in developing countries want a tyrannical system of government, which just isn't true.

I'm not thinking about "all those poor people in developing countries". I'm thinking about the socialists and communists in OUR country. I wasn't trying to give you an education, only trying to point out that as long as collectivists "group think", you will never reach them. They need to be convinced that the only freedom worth having is individual freedom.

[BenIsForRon]

The problem is that regulations are created by corporations who want to disrespect property rights, so they form an allowable limit to the amount that they are able to pollute.

As Ron Paul has stated many times, environmental regulations came about in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Industry went to government because they were tired of being sued by individual property owners for polluting their land. The government regulations allowed corporations to pollute other people's land rather than limiting their pollution.

If we respected property rights, we would be much more environmentally conscious. Instead we have corporations writing the environmental regulations that allow them to pollute.

Ok, well if we decided to do complete enforcement of property rights tomorrow, then we would have a complete economic collapse the next day. There is no industry that doesn't create significant pollution. Every industry is damaging someone else's property to some degree. Whether it is air or water pollution, they're doing it to some level.

[dannno]

Ok, well if we decided to do complete enforcement of property rights tomorrow, then we would have a complete economic collapse the next day. There is no industry that doesn't create significant pollution. Every industry is damaging someone else's property to some degree. Whether it is air or water pollution, they're doing it to some level.

Nah, they'd just have to contain everything and then pay some other property owner to contain their pollution on their property.

[dannno]

I'm not thinking about "all those poor people in developing countries". I'm thinking about the socialists and communists in OUR country. I wasn't trying to give you an education, only trying to point out that as long as collectivists "group think", you will never reach them. They need to be convinced that the only freedom worth having is individual freedom.

But the socialists and commies in our country are also that way because they read about what is happening in these other countries to the indigenous in college or whatever other primarily leftist source.. so property rights needs to be paramount, and that is a part of individual liberty. Not to mention it would be nice if more libertarians were educated about how this whole system works of stealing indigenous land in other countries so we can address the topic properly, which was my entire point for creating this thread. The video explains the whole thing very nicely.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ok, well if we decided to do complete enforcement of property rights tomorrow, then we would have a complete economic collapse the next day. There is no industry that doesn't create significant pollution. Every industry is damaging someone else's property to some degree. Whether it is air or water pollution, they're doing it to some level.

So what does that tell you about how well environmental regulations work? Only enforcement of property rights will bring out a cleaner environment. I also challenge the notion that we would have a complete economic collapse...regardless, if we did this the next day (it certainly wouldn't be overnight as the courts would be tied up for a bit, and in the absence of market courts, this would take a LONG time to get through), it would be a benefit. Besides, it wouldn't be a collapse, but a restructuring, something we need anyways if we are ever to realize a libertarian society.

[BenIsForRon]

Nah, they'd just have to contain everything and then pay some other property owner to contain their pollution on their property.

If they had to capture every single emission and toxin, they wouldn't be able to stay in business. Some businesses could, but many wouldn't. A lot of people would lose their jobs.

If we're going to do something like that, we need a few years to prepare, I would think.

Besides, a river can't be private property, no matter what Austrian Econ Disinfo Agent says. Or a moral society couldn't tolerate it being private, that is. You need regulations for public property.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If they had to capture every single emission and toxin, they wouldn't be able to stay in business. Some businesses could, but many wouldn't. A lot of people would lose their jobs.

If we're going to do something like that, we need a few years to prepare, I would think.

Besides, a river can't be private property, no matter what Austrian Econ Disinfo Agent says. Or a moral society couldn't tolerate it being private, that is. You need regulations for public property.

Are you kidding me? You seem to contradict yourself quite a bit.

Why can't a body of water be homesteaded? Look at what is happening to Somalia coasts. When no one has ownership, property gets destroyed, polluted, rampaged, what have you. I must ask, who has more imperative to see that their property retains value -- The property owner who wishes to keep his wealth, or the revolving State-door who's politicians seek to extract as much wealth before they either get voted out, or their term is up. Why do you trust the corrupt politician more than the personal property owner who has a direct stake in his wealth and earnings?

[ClayTrainor]

Besides, a river can't be private property,

Total nonsense.

[ClayTrainor]

Why do you trust the corrupt politician more than the personal property owner who has a direct stake in his wealth and earnings?

Well said. I think this question really narrows down the disagreement.

[BenIsForRon]

The company who uses the water to cool equipment or dump toxins doesn't care about the river's quality. They're smelting steel, not fishing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The company who uses the water to cool equipment or dump toxins doesn't care about the river's quality. They're smelting steel, not fishing.

However, the people downstream most likely will and will take the aforementioned company to court. Like I said, only enforcement of property rights will secure a cleaner environment. What about the State solution that doesn't work and is staring you in the face is hard to comprehend? :(

[ClayTrainor]

The company who uses the water to cool equipment or dump toxins doesn't care about the river's quality.

They may not, but the other shareholders (i.e. busiensses and residences downstream) in the river most definitely will.

[BenIsForRon]

So the company that heats the water kills the fish. But the water is back to the natural temperature by the time it reaches the next property owner. Does the next property owner have the right to sue the first, just because half the fish are dead?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So the company that heats the water kills the fish. But the water is back to the natural temperature by the time it reaches the next property owner. Does the next property owner have the right to sue the first, just because half the fish are dead?

That would be up to the decision of the Judge and the corresponding arbiters. It could very well be upheld, or it couldn't (I am more leaning on it wouldn't be as they would probably rule it is no different than the fisherman fishing the fish in the first place). I imagine in such a society that the company would take precautions to preclude such expenses (E.g. it is cheaper to take some water of the body of water to cool your equipment, than to dip your equipment into the water). Mind you, I don't know of any large scale industrial techniques that employ such crude blacksmithing measures, though surely I could be wrong.

Certainly, your scenario is pretty slim also, given that it is more profitable to fish farm, than it is to naturally fish rivers. Of course, supplemental income is always beneficial.

The simple answer -- Just don't know.

[Romulus]

I just watched it... I like the overall concept of reducing the amt of useless crap we consume and caring for wildlife.

Its obvious the Govs and Corps are having their way with us, and we are more than happy to oblige.

[BenIsForRon]

That would be up to the decision of the Judge and the corresponding arbiters. It could very well be upheld, or it couldn't (I am more leaning on it wouldn't be as they would probably rule it is no different than the fisherman fishing the fish in the first place). I imagine in such a society that the company would take precautions to preclude such expenses (E.g. it is cheaper to take some water of the body of water to cool your equipment, than to dip your equipment into the water). Mind you, I don't know of any large scale industrial techniques that employ such crude blacksmithing measures, though surely I could be wrong.

Certainly, your scenario is pretty slim also, given that it is more profitable to fish farm, than it is to naturally fish rivers. Of course, supplemental income is always beneficial.

The simple answer -- Just don't know.

Industry uses river and lake water to cool their equipment all the time, and if they do it improperly, they end up killing a lot of wildlife. It's called thermal pollution.

And they don't dip their equipment in the water, I thought you, the ultimate capitalist, would at least know that. They pump the water into their facility, and pump it back out. If they are responsible, they have a way to cool it. But because it is cost prohibitive, many don't.

And because SOCIETY values that wildlife, we say that no person or organization should be able to significantly alter that wildlife community, such as with a massive fish kill. Hence regulations. Look at this a judicial precedent.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Industry uses river and lake water to cool their equipment all the time, and if they do it improperly, they end up killing a lot of wildlife. It's called thermal pollution.

And they don't dip their equipment in the water, I thought you, the ultimate capitalist, would at least know that. They pump the water into their facility, and pump it back out. If they are responsible, they have a way to cool it. But because it is cost prohibitive, many don't.

And because SOCIETY values that wildlife, we say that no person or organization should be able to significantly alter that wildlife community, such as with a massive fish kill. Hence regulations. Look at this a judicial precedent.

I am the ultimate Misesian Austrian, and thus, as you know, would never claim full knowledge of all that is :D

I also love how you interject your values and make them into societies values. Stop saying "we" and "society" when you are talking about your own personal values.

So, are regulations stopping this thermal pollution now, or is it that corporations simply buy out the regulators, or is it in the first place the corporations who write the regulations and crowd out their competition through the fist of Government?

Seriously, since when has your solution ever worked? If it did (And we have tens of thousands of regulations on the books for these things), you would see benefits today, but you don't because it doesn't work, and it is the exact opposite of what you claim. Take time to actually study how the regulatory systems work, and how they are manipulated by corporations and business entities to benefit themselves at the expense of smaller competition.

[BenIsForRon]

Regulations can be successful when they are simple. Clean water act got many polluters to reduce their pollution without putting them out of business. The Ohio river now supports life, when in the 60's it didn't.

[dannno]

Besides, a river can't be private property, no matter what Austrian Econ Disinfo Agent says. Or a moral society couldn't tolerate it being private, that is. You need regulations for public property.

I agree in that rivers and streams are apart of a watershed that is shared amongst all property owners. They even affect miles of the coastline if they are altered upstream. I don't think people should be able to significantly alter watersheds, but I still think it's a private property issue.

[BenIsForRon]

I agree in that rivers and streams are apart of a watershed that is shared amongst all property owners. They even affect miles of the coastline if they are altered upstream. I don't think people should be able to significantly alter watersheds, but I still think it's a private property issue.

yeah, all water is connected, due to the constant flow of groundwater. That really limits the amount of things someone can do on their property without effecting others property.

I guess my point is that, because it's impossible not to contaminate a watershed without being a completely agrarian society, we need to figure out which levels of pollution are tolerable without significantly harming the environment. This is where regulations come in. They're ground rules, they keep things fair to the stakeholders (i.e. everyone).

I could go into the other reasons why I think rivers should be public, but that would derail the thread even further.

...back to story of stuff, it's a great video.

[dannno]

yeah, all water is connected, due to the constant flow of groundwater. That really limits the amount of things someone can do on their property without effecting others property.

Ya. It doesn't mean you can't do ANYTHING to your land, it has to be determined that it affects somebody else's property.




I guess my point is that, because it's impossible not to contaminate a watershed without being a completely agrarian society, we need to figure out which levels of pollution are tolerable without significantly harming the environment.

Who is "we"? The Federal Government?

Personally I would rather have that decided at the local level. Sure, sometimes a company might pay off a corrupt judge, but would you rather a company have to pay off 500 corrupt judges around the country and risk getting caught, or a few politicians and scientists in DC through currently legal channels such as campaign contributions and scientific funding?



...back to story of stuff, it's a great video.

Did I mention I'm about to see her lecture in person in less than 4 hours?

[BenIsForRon]

Let us know how it goes. Story of stuff is a few years old now, I'm sure she has some more ammo for her arguments now.

[dannno]

I might actually try to get it on video, or at least record it... though it's gonna be 2 hours, I don't know if my iphone will be able to get 2 hours of video..

[silverhandorder]

Ben how do you justify private property when you want to abolish it? Do you not agree that people should be able to do w/e they want as long as they effect no one else?

[QueenB4Liberty]

I thought the video was great, except her saying the government should take care of us and some of her solutions.

[Fox McCloud]

she says 50% of the budget goes to the military, is that true?

utter BS

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IiWf8u5z6NI/SdqTE8fK_-I/AAAAAAAACN0/pGiKi5D1TJs/s400/US-Spending.bmp

non-discretionary spending is the real killer these days.

[CUnknown]

utter BS

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IiWf8u5z6NI/SdqTE8fK_-I/AAAAAAAACN0/pGiKi5D1TJs/s400/US-Spending.bmp

non-discretionary spending is the real killer these days.

It depends on how you run the numbers. It is more accurate, imo, to say that military spending includes things like veterans benefits, interest payments on war-related debt, and a large portion of the State Dept's budget these days as well (military aid, Blackwater contractors, etc.). This is how the number gets to around 50%.

Basically, you are quoting the number just for the Dept of Defense there. But there's more to it than that. Incidentally, Ron Paul's common quote that we spend about a trillion a year on maintaining our empire comes from this larger number, not the 21% number you are citing.

[dannno]

It depends on how you run the numbers. It is more accurate, imo, to say that military spending includes things like veterans benefits, interest payments on war-related debt, and a large portion of the State Dept's budget these days as well (military aid, Blackwater contractors, etc.). This is how the number gets to around 50%.

Basically, you are quoting the number just for the Dept of Defense there. But there's more to it than that. Incidentally, Ron Paul's common quote that we spend about a trillion a year on maintaining our empire comes from this larger number, not the 21% number you are citing.

+1


Never trust 'government numbers'.

[Fox McCloud]

It depends on how you run the numbers. It is more accurate, imo, to say that military spending includes things like veterans benefits, interest payments on war-related debt, and a large portion of the State Dept's budget these days as well (military aid, Blackwater contractors, etc.). This is how the number gets to around 50%.

Basically, you are quoting the number just for the Dept of Defense there. But there's more to it than that. Incidentally, Ron Paul's common quote that we spend about a trillion a year on maintaining our empire comes from this larger number, not the 21% number you are citing.

even if you add "other programs" in with "defense", it adds up to 50%, and I guarantee that the majority of the "other programs" isn't other forms of defense spending, so even with your assumptions, I still don't think you can get to 50%.

Now, if you refer to only discretionary spending and toss out non-discretionary, then you can say that military spending makes up roughly 62% of the budget, but this is intellectual dishonesty; you have to include non-discretionary spending.


Even if we go with Ron Paul's $1 Trillion figure, the total outlays for 2010 is $3.5 Trillion, which is hardly 50%.