When after her “worlds first” travel by sail as a passenger from england to new york (seriously no one has ever done that before) she and the crew that actually did the sailing flew back home to Sweden and then a different crew flew out to new york to sail back.
Before that historic journey, I’d never even conceived of a ship powered not by fire, but by wind. We have a lot to learn from the high school drop out and I’m sure she has much to teach us about environmentalism. So long as we desperately redirect, obfuscate and ignore the societal causes of man-made global warming, surely one day we can all get a crew to sail each of us around the world, just like she did solving the problem once and for all.
The point is to make you think about climate change and act according to your own conscience. But yeah, unfortunately she is big famous now.whether she intended it or not, once she shows up it’s all about Greta.
It could also be the case that having a high profile individual at your protest makes that protest larger and gains attention or would not have otherwise had.
It’s better than just lobbing orange paint around, or blocking a major motorway.
At this point I suspect the public are sick of the “world is dying” message. Most people are struggling to get through life, without being told every day that they’re killing the planet. Most people can’t just magic £30k out of their arse to buy an electric car or heatpump.
Unless you’re willing to physically harm the handful of people that can actually change anything (and I’m certainly not), there just isn’t a lot that a normal person can do about any of it.
“You’re right, our only reporting on climate change shouldn’t be about one protester getting arrested… let’s switch to our preferred option: never reporting about it at all”.
At the end of the day, the people can rise up against the capitalists to stop them from poisoning our only habitat we are all wholly dependent upon. We can stop the self-destructive madness of demanding infinite growth carved out of the ass of a finite world.
Greta is doing the right thing in the face of Armageddon. Almost everyone else will either continue begging the sociopathic oligarch polluters to stop, spoilers: they make fun of you for it at parties, or more likely just continue business as usual as if we aren’t reverse terraforming the Earth, hoping it won’t be their problem.
Greta is setting an example, one none of us will follow as I’m sure she knows, but her hands are clean for trying. I’m sure some will deride it as “virtue signaling” aka admitting they don’t have the capacity for empathy or selflessness, but those are usually the same people that get angry at others for claiming the “free capital market” isn’t the cure for the many self-inflicted human crises caused by the “free capital market.”
the people can rise up against the capitalists to stop them from poisoning our only habitat we are all wholly dependent upon
Are you ignoring all the labor these "capitalists" and their workers do to provide you the goods we all wholly demand upon? All of this is done by social cooperation between both of them by voluntary association.
We can stop the self-destructive madness of demanding infinite growth carved out of the ass of a finite world.
This would work if the price system would actually work as intended (free from the intervention of the State) to distribute all the scarce resources in a free-market setting.
Greta is doing the right thing in the face of Armageddon
By wanting the Monopoly of Violence to step in? To call the international organizations (spoilers: they don't care about us) to intervene in foreign countries?
Almost everyone else will either continue begging the sociopathic oligarch polluters to stop
They can actually do that because of the existence of "common goods" and of the monopolical privileges granted by the same State, such as subsidies, regulations discreetly affecting SMEs, the lack of enforcement of private property to protect those "common goods", etc.
but those are usually the same people that get angry at others for claiming the “free capital market” isn’t the cure for the many self-inflicted human crises caused by the “free capital market.”
On the contrary; they love subsidies, they love intellectual property, they love FIAT money, they love the monopolical privileges: basically, their activities depend entirely on the mere existence of corporatocracy.
Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.
Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.
If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.
We dont need a free market anymore. We need responsibility for what these people got rich on. And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.
Man wtf. We had over 100 Years of almost free market and look where we are now.
I don't know what you interpret as "free market", but the mere existance of a Monopoly of Violence, lobbying, manipulation of money, state licenses, blah, blah, blah... is not free at all.
Businesses in germany have to pay a fuckload of taxes and still get richt as fuck.
Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.
If there is no free market on a national scale, than there is a almost anarchytical free market on an international scale.
What about protectionism, tariffs, special licenses, international regulations, "common goods", the World Bank Group, the IMF, and very much any kind of coercion made by "Welfare" States?
And they have to pay back what they destroyed. Like everybody else, when you destroy sth, either on purpose or without, you need to pay.
"Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another's property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive."
You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?
Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?
You mean all these private international businesses have a hard time going around worldwide regulations?
Quite the contrary; the State by lobbying, subsidies and "international aids" is actually benefiting the giant businesses, as the coercion made by the State harms the SME's and we the common people to trade with other countries.
Basically, I'm describing corporatocracy (the State is dominated by corporate business interests).
Do you know, that even with the sanctions, russia exports and imports (almost) as usual, because internationally nobody cares? And if sb cares, they will make a daughtercompany in no time which does the trade?
By "russia exports and imports" (fallacious use of collective nouns), I'll interpret it as businesses affected by the sanctions.
As I said before: "Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics". You can't just infere those sanctions are not working from having analyzed statistics and economic history. You need first an economic theory that tries to explain how the economy works by identifying the causal relationships between economic actions and events.
I'd recommend you to read about Mises's Human Action (praxeology based on methodological individualism).
Add comment