- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Why do you care?

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on March 31, 1999 at 17:43:33:

In Reply to: your goals? posted by Gee on March 31, 1999 at 16:08:24:

: : SDF: That's YOUR goal, Gee. Since you don't believe in collectivism, Gee, and have made numerous protests to that effect, I can at this point gleefully respond: speak for yourself.

: Thats ok, what is your goal?

SDF: Gee, why do you care? Still secretly trying to form a collective with me? It can't be the "force" thing; as a Green, I obviously believe in nonviolence. Given your previous statements of belief, your only reasonable province of concern should be your OWN goal.

: To reduce the sum of global wealth

SDF: Gee, why do you care about the "sum of global wealth"? Still secretly trying to rob other people of theirs? Given your previous statements of belief, your only proper moral concern should be YOUR store of wealth. You've made it quite clear that you don't care about the "sum of global wealth" possessed by the impoverished people of the world, the underclasses of Brazil or Thailand or Indonesia? Could this lack of concern on your part be because they don't have anything you can take from them?

: but to distribute it in some 'sustainable' manner? (and hope people stay this way)

SDF: Let's see. I ride a bike. Others drive their cars. From Gee's perspective, my goal is to "reduce the sum of global wealth," because, unlike any sane human being, I'm not trying to dry up the world's oil reserves.

I'm also promoting voluntary collectivism and self-sufficiency. From Gee's perspective I'm in the process of distributing wealth, all by myself.

: How do you intend to arrive at that goal?

SDF: Gee, you wouldn't understand my means of arriving at my goal, so I'm not going to tell you what they are. You're too busy with your prima facie false insinuations.

The meaning of the word "sustainability" should be obvious; a sustainable system in one that can conceivably run for the lifetime of its operators without exploiting a non-renewable and limited resource. Sustainability, not anarcho-capitalist dogmatism, should be the first goal of a civilization that intends to do more than leave a bright and shiny corpse when it burns itself out. Oh, sure, the Earth's wealth is limitless. The human race has incurred global warming and is killing off a species every day through deforestation; never mind that ecological destruction and resource depletion represent a DAILY, UNACCOUNTED-FOR and MASSIVE LOSS of wealth, a loss that increases as ecological destruction and resource depletion increase. Why is this loss unaccounted-for? Perhaps because it appears on no mere individual's balance-sheet?

But maybe, maybe if we all just keep believing that we are "creating wealth" when we chop down forests or build nuclear power plants or fish the oceans dry or pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air, we'll live happily ever after in our secret collectives (this is how "we" got to calling ourselves "we" instead of "I" and "you") while we secretly steal from others (thus our phony concern with the "sum of global wealth" when we should be busy "making more for ourselves").

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup