Random Chat, Thoughts, Posts, and/or Rants Thread

[Kak]

I understand your points, yes maybe a climate change emergency would limit our freedom.

Nonetheless I think that in the last 2 centuries we have lived in a sort of bubble, we consumed and lived as if there was unlimited resources.

@Thoelt53 @thechosen1 do you think we have small influence on earth? In Italy (I don’t know elsewhere) we have built over 7% of the territory. How’s such a percentage a small influence? The world won’t end, but we will.

I’m afraid that you guys (from the moment that you are entrepreneurs) don’t want to face the reality because this crisis would damage especially entrepreneurs. I’m talking about transport/travel industries (and as a consequence for example lots of drop shipping businesses) or meat consumption industry just to make 2 examples.

Don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong but this unlimited capitalistic model just seems to me unsustainable.

Then you don’t know anything about capitalism. It is the only thing we do that’s sustainable. It literally is the only economic system that doesn’t ignore human nature.

-People act to improve their condition. Even politicians. They aren’t our moral or intellectual superiors, even though they are marketed as such.

-Capitalism embraces win-win exchanges of value between two people. The fair and honest way to improve one’s condition

- There’s no point that even millions of win-win value exchanges somehow becomes immoral, wrong or unsustainable.

- Government fixes nothing.

- Business, innovation, entrepreneurs and capitalism fix everything.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mario_fastlaner]

Then you don’t know anything about capitalism. It is the only thing we do that’s sustainable. It literally is the only economic system that doesn’t ignore human nature.

-People act to improve their condition. Even politicians. They aren’t our moral or intellectual superiors, even though they are marketed as such.

-Capitalism embraces win-win exchanges of value between two people. The fair and honest way to improve one’s condition

- There’s no point that even millions of win-win value exchanges somehow becomes immoral, wrong or unsustainable.

- Government fixes nothing.

- Business, innovation, entrepreneurs and capitalism fix everything.

Maybe there is a third part to consider, not only producer and consumer.
How much the product impact the world?

If I produce, let’s say, a car and sell it to you, then we have a win-win situation.
But the impact of the car in the world climate?
Now we have a win-win-loss situation.

And notice that I didn’t say just “capitalism”, I said “this unlimited capitalistic model”.
I also believe entrepreneurs, businesses etc. can fix this problem, but how we can do that if nobody put a limit on how we use world resources?

why do I (as an entrepreneur) have to start a business in a sustainable way if I can do the same thing in an easier way damaging the planet but maximizing my profit?

 

[Kak]

Maybe there is a third part to consider, not only producer and consumer.
How much the product impact the world?

If I produce, let’s say, a car and sell it to you, then we have a win-win situation.
But the impact of the car in the world climate?
Now we have a win-win-loss situation.

And notice that I didn’t say just “capitalism”, I said “this unlimited capitalistic model”.
I also believe entrepreneurs, businesses etc. can fix this problem, but how we can do that if nobody put a limit on how we use world resources?

why do I (as an entrepreneur) have to start a business in a sustainable way if I can do the same thing in an easier way damaging the planet but maximizing my profit?

Capitalism with limitations is socialism. Which is what we already have. I could go down the property rights rabbit hole with that one, but we will keep it simple.

You’re making the assumption that capitalism doesn’t consider such things, when it does.

If I started a business that killed some kind of indigenous frog… People would be outside of my business with pitchforks and torches ready to kill me in short order.

Is that good for business? No. So if it isn’t good for business, is it good for profits? Of course not.

The entrepreneur and capitalism is the reason for the closing gap in prices between renewable energy sources and non renewables.

Let me lay out an example of how central manipulation backfires.

If a government, let’s say, subsidizes renewables. They only have to rise to the occasion and that occasion is literally reduced by the subsidy.

In other words, if there’s a 10% subsidy on renewables, they only have to be 90% as good as non-renewables to be marketable. That might sound great to someone like you, but the problem is literally unsustainability of the business model itself. Since it doesn’t have to be as good, it isn’t. It also reduces the demand for the non-renewables, which makes the prices of non-renewables fall. Again making the renewables struggle even more against nonrenewables.

Instead, capitalism considers the full picture. If energy can be delivered to homes at $.15 per kWh, solar, wind, whatever, needs to be able to do the same before it is economically viable. So they will have to work harder on making that so.

You may say, well that will never happen without the government’s force. Why wouldn’t it? There’s massive profits in it for the entrepreneur if they can pull it off. Way way way more profits than the commoditized status quo. And they will, but slower because of the government. Energy will eventually be one of the cheapest things we buy, but until then, the government sees fit to slow progress and call it progressivism.

Instead, the market will take the early technologies to where it IS ALREADY VIABLE instead. There are islands where the energy costs $.30 per kWh. A much easier competitor. That churns income and helps development to later tackle the lower priced areas of the world.

There are also countless investors that understand the future of energy and want to get in on the action. At one point, only about a decade ago, ExxonMobil was the biggest company in the world… Today, it’s not even close. Why? The market sees the future.

The market is smarter, faster and better than central control every time.

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

Capitalism with limitations is socialism. Which is what we already have. I could go down the property rights rabbit hole with that one, but we will keep it simple.

You’re making the assumption that capitalism doesn’t consider such things, when it does.

If I started a business that killed some kind of indigenous frog… People would be outside of my business with pitchforks and torches ready to kill me in short order.

Is that good for business? No. So if it isn’t good for business, is it good for profits? Of course not.

The entrepreneur and capitalism is the reason for the closing gap in prices between renewable energy sources and non renewables.

Let me lay out an example of how central manipulation backfires.

If a government, let’s say, subsidizes renewables. They only have to rise to the occasion and that occasion is literally reduced by the subsidy.

In other words, if there’s a 10% subsidy on renewables, they only have to be 90% as good as non-renewables to be marketable. That might sound great to someone like you, but the problem is literally unsustainability of the business model itself. Since it doesn’t have to be as good, it isn’t. It also reduces the demand for the non-renewables, which makes the prices of non-renewables fall. Again making the renewables struggle even more against nonrenewables.

Instead, capitalism considers the full picture. If energy can be delivered to homes at $.15 per kWh, solar, wind, whatever, needs to be able to do the same before it is economically viable. So they will have to work harder on making that so.

You may say, well that will never happen without the government’s force. Why wouldn’t it? There’s massive profits in it for the entrepreneur if they can pull it off. Way way way more profits than the commoditized status quo. And they will, but slower because of the government. Energy will eventually be one of the cheapest things we buy, but until then, the government sees fit to slow progress and call it progressivism.

Instead, the market will take the early technologies to where it IS ALREADY VIABLE instead. There are islands where the energy costs $.30 per kWh. A much easier competitor. That churns income and helps development to later tackle the lower priced areas of the world.

There are also countless investors that understand the future of energy and want to get in on the action. At one point, only about a decade ago, ExxonMobil was the biggest company in the world… Today, it’s not even close. Why? The market sees the future.

The market is smarter, faster and better than central control every time.

100% this. Sometimes the market is wrong of course, because the market is like democracy, where everyone gets a vote whether they know what the heck is happening or not.

There's a reason why all the top companies turned their logos into rainbow flags @Mario_fastlaner and it isn't because the CEO's are all gay.

It's because that's what the market wanted, what gave them the easiest risk-benefit ratio, and kept them in the mainstream.

Have you ever noticed that none of the top billionaires come out with all this praise and worship for Capitalism, the very system that go them rich?

That's because they are salesmen serving the market and saying what people want to hear. Literally providing the thing that will help them make more money.

It pays to give the market what it wants.

So, if the market wants to protect the rare species of frog or the blue-footed-boobie, like @Kak said, that is going to be in the company's best long-term interest, ironically enough...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MTF]

You’re making the assumption that capitalism doesn’t consider such things, when it does.

A few years ago the city where I live decided to create a new district. It used to be an urban forest. Now only the pitiful shreds of it remain, the rest covered in buildings built as close together as possible to squeeze maximum profit.

They were all built by private developers, most of whom cut down all the trees right away. The few developers who wanted to sell their properties as "surrounded by nature" (LOL) left some trees standing but they still cut almost all of them.

How does capitalism consider the environment in this case? It doesn't. Does it think about its impact fifty years from now? It doesn't. What matters is to "upgrade" (read: degrade) the land and sell it, not preserve it. There's no money in saving the world, as one of my friends who's reforesting degraded lands says.

It might have been a win for the city, for the developers, and for the people who moved in, but it sure isn't a win for the rest of the city's population (who doesn't have this forest anymore to enjoy and soon may not have another such place), let alone for the plants and all the animals that lived there.

There used to be a forest, now there isn't. And as the city keeps selling the land that is now an urban forest or an urban park, there will be more and more buildings and less and less nature. The profit is made in cutting every single tree and replacing it with another built-up square meter so that you can sell as many units as possible.

So in this aspect, the (smart) government can fix something - as long as it holds the land and doesn't sell to a developer, it won't be destroyed by them. No private company would buy land just to protect it; it only makes sense if they can extract something from it.

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

A few years ago the city where I live decided to create a new district. It used to be an urban forest. Now only the pitiful shreds of it remain, the rest covered in buildings built as close together as possible to squeeze maximum profit.

They were all built by private developers, most of whom cut down all the trees right away. The few developers who wanted to sell their properties as "surrounded by nature" (LOL) left some trees standing but they still cut almost all of them.

How does capitalism consider the environment in this case? It doesn't. Does it think about its impact fifty years from now? It doesn't. What matters is to "upgrade" (read: degrade) the land and sell it, not preserve it. There's no money in saving the world, as one of my friends who's reforesting degraded lands says.

It might have been a win for the city, for the developers, and for the people who moved in, but it sure isn't a win for the rest of the city's population (who doesn't have this forest anymore to enjoy and soon may not have another such place), let alone for the plants and all the animals that lived there.

There used to be a forest, now there isn't. And as the city keeps selling the land that is now an urban forest or an urban park, there will be more and more buildings and less and less nature. The profit is made in cutting every single tree and replacing it with another built-up square meter so that you can sell as many units as possible.

So in this aspect, the (smart) government can fix something - as long as it holds the land and doesn't sell to a developer, it won't be destroyed by them. No private company would buy land just to protect it; it only makes sense if they can extract something from it.

I do think you have a point here.

That’s why I’m not an anarchist haha

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Question: If I wear a t-shirt that says "Freedom" with a picture of the American flag, do I get to pay less taxes? Can I leave the country without an exit tax? Without a passport? Can I stop paying my property taxes but still keep my beautiful house that I worked so hard for?

Likewise, if I stand in a garage, can I call myself a car?

How does capitalism consider the environment in this case?

It doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist, but there has to be a balance between resources and unfettered, unlimited profits at any cost because shareholders and Wall Street analysts demand it.

Part of the reason I'm getting out of Arizona is because of the relentless growth. Every plot of land down here (S. Suburbs) that is vacant is now being built upon -- apartments, tiny houses jammed packed together -- it is simply unsustainable. This is unrestrained capitalism, and I guarantee you, the developers don't give a shit, and neither do the city council members who undoubtedly got a nice stipend for their reelection campaign.

How long can it last? I'm not sure, but I don't want to be here when the water shortages hit.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

A few years ago the city where I live decided to create a new district.

They knew what would happen when they sold it so who’s fault is this really? Blaming developers for developing valuable land is ridiculous.

The market put things where they are needed most. There was clearly demand for commercially applicable buildings in that particular area. The world is a geographically diverse place. This area needed stuff for humans more than it needed trees.

If NYC sold central park the same thing would happen.

This does not mean capitalism doesn't consider the desires of the people, it did. Did it consider the desires of the trees? No it didn't and won't. Trees aren't paying customers.

The point is, when people value trees more than people value buildings, and they will at some point, capitalism will consider leaving forests in inconvenient places. For now, we aren't there.

Why do I know this?

The market has, at the same time that has happened, has also left billions of acres untouched elsewhere. Why? Because the market isn't demanding something different in those areas.

This argument amounts to “who is going to stop businesses from cutting down trees they own if it isn't the government?”

Stopping people from cutting down trees that they own is bullshit.

If you wanted to save the trees you should have bought them yourself. Unless you think you couldn't resist “extracting something” from the land for “maximum profits.”

 

[Mathuin]

If you wanted to save the trees you should have bought them yourself.

Cue Felix Dennis. Dude just bought up thousands of acres of land and starting planting trees himself. He certainly was an anomaly though under the current circumstances.

Heart of England Forest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lex DeVille]

Eventually, the virtual reality centers built where the trees were will show you trees so real you won't know they aren't there, you aren't there, and nothing exists.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Madame Peccato]

Covid winter plan could see masks and social distancing for next five years

Officials could get the power to bring back masks and social distancing quickly in case of future outbreaks for the next five years

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

The vaccines are so good that___________________

Finish the sentence after reading the above news

 

[MTF]

The point is, when people value trees more than people value buildings, and they will at some point, capitalism will consider leaving forests in inconvenient places. For now, we aren't there.

At this point, will there be anything else to leave alone? The entire problem is that if you wait for capitalism to consider leaving forests in "inconvenient" places, the moment may come when it's too late to save them. There are countless examples of places that are forever destroyed already.

@MJ DeMarco summed it up well in his example of Arizona. That's exactly what I wanted to convey.

This does not mean capitalism doesn't consider the desires of the people, it did. Did it consider the desires of the trees? No it didn't and won't. Trees aren't paying customers.

And herein lies the entire problem. The value of the world can't be judged by the number of "paying customers" alone or it becomes one giant factory with no place for what makes life worth living. This includes plenty of things you can't and shouldn't commercialize, including nature, public spaces, many arts, etc.

There are things that should be free and available for everyone. I would hate for my beloved lake to be turned into a private club where I would have to pay for the privilege of swimming in it. Or worse, see all the trees around it cut down and the lake polluted to wait for capitalism to one day perhaps value clean water more than short-term profit. Thankfully, it's public land and I hope it'll stay this way forever.

Stopping people from cutting down trees that they own is bullshit.

So if someone buys an old-growth forest that took hundreds of ages to grow and cuts down all the trees because he happens to "own them," that's cool with you? The ecosystem the "owner" destroyed is forever lost, along with thousands of rare animals and plants that lived there. That's textbook ecocide.

In scenarios like these, I don't believe in capitalism because it doesn't take into account the fact that owning something doesn't give you the right to destroy something that had existed long before you were born.

If trees don't speak to you, then let's imagine someone buying a castle that was built in the Middle Ages. Since he owns it, he decides to bulldoze it and replace it with a shopping mall. Is that also cool with you? The castle is never coming back and with it, a part of human legacy. What gives the guy the right to erase hundreds of years of history? The fact that he has money? The world where this would be true would be a very sad place.

Anyway, pretty sure we have to agree to disagree here.

Cue Felix Dennis. Dude just bought up thousands of acres of land and starting planting trees himself. He certainly was an anomaly though under the current circumstances.

He proves my point because it's set up as a charity. It would never work as a business. But I appreciate his initiative a lot.

The only example that comes to my mind of a company that does understand the risks of exploitative capitalism and is successful in today's world is Patagonia.

Eventually, the virtual reality centers built where the trees were will show you trees so real you won't know they aren't there, you aren't there, and nothing exists.

Sort of reminds me of this picture:



Cut down the tree, rent umbrellas, make a profit. Because who would make money from a tree that gave free shade? And this way, it still sort of looks like a tree (the stump is still there, see how eco-friendly I am!) so everyone's happy, right?

 

[Mario_fastlaner]

At this point, will there be anything else to leave alone? The entire problem is that if you wait for capitalism to consider leaving forests in "inconvenient" places, the moment may come when it's too late to save them. There are countless examples of places that are forever destroyed already.

@MJ DeMarco summed it up well in his example of Arizona. That's exactly what I wanted to convey.



And herein lies the entire problem. The value of the world can't be judged by the number of "paying customers" alone or it becomes one giant factory with no place for what makes life worth living. This includes plenty of things you can't and shouldn't commercialize, including nature, public spaces, many arts, etc.

There are things that should be free and available for everyone. I would hate for my beloved lake to be turned into a private club where I would have to pay for the privilege of swimming in it. Or worse, see all the trees around it cut down and the lake polluted to wait for capitalism to one day perhaps value clean water more than short-term profit. Thankfully, it's public land and I hope it'll stay this way forever.



So if someone buys an old-growth forest that took hundreds of ages to grow and cuts down all the trees because he happens to "own them," that's cool with you? The ecosystem the "owner" destroyed is forever lost, along with thousands of rare animals and plants that lived there. That's textbook ecocide.

In scenarios like these, I don't believe in capitalism because it doesn't take into account the fact that owning something doesn't give you the right to destroy something that had existed long before you were born.

If trees don't speak to you, then let's imagine someone buying a castle that was built in the Middle Ages. Since he owns it, he decides to bulldoze it and replace it with a shopping mall. Is that also cool with you? The castle is never coming back and with it, a part of human legacy. What gives the guy the right to erase hundreds of years of history? The fact that he has money? The world where this would be true would be a very sad place.

Anyway, pretty sure we have to agree to disagree here.



He proves my point because it's set up as a charity. It would never work as a business. But I appreciate his initiative a lot.

The only example that comes to my mind of a company that does understand the risks of exploitative capitalism and is successful in today's world is Patagonia.



Sort of reminds me of this picture:

View attachment 38709

Cut down the tree, rent umbrellas, make a profit. Because who would make money from a tree that gave free shade? And this way, it still sort of looks like a tree (the stump is still there, see how eco-friendly I am!) so everyone's happy, right?

I couldn’t have explained it better, thank you very much @MTF

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

We are going to have to agree to disagree. If I want to remove a tree from the land I own, that is my business not yours. I believe in property rights.

This is a sliding scale… Where do you draw the line? Your home is ok, but the new homes going in aren’t? Your home was new once and there were trees there.

Who built the road to your swimming lake? Someone might have even built the damn lake. Was that ok?

If you take your point of view to its logical end, it is simply anti-civilization. The convenience and luxuries of modern life are bad and scavenging for berries in the woods and living in a lean-to is good?

Is your home built out of gathered and already dead resources? Do you let bugs live there with you? Would you cut down an “inconvienent” tree that could fall on your home?

Was the Panama Canal a good idea? Was Mining the metal that made the ships that traverse it a good idea? What about farming and agriculture? What about literally anything responsible for our lifestyle differences between today and 500 years ago? How about airplanes and airports? Cars and roads?

If some of this is OK and some isn't, the argument is hypocritical. Someone had to clear some land to make that stuff happen. The economy is a delicate balance. This specialization of labor and advanced civilization is required in order to literally survive. Slowing it, or dialing it back literally makes life harder and less prosperous for everyone. So I own the “life worth living” argument.

So if someone buys an old-growth forest that took hundreds of ages to grow and cuts down all the trees because he happens to "own them," that's cool with you?

Yes.

let's imagine someone buying a castle that was built in the Middle Ages. Since he owns it, he decides to bulldoze it and replace it with a shopping mall. Is that also cool with you?

YES! Blow it up for fun for all I care. I hope he puts it on YouTube.

What gives the guy the right to erase hundreds of years of history? The fact that he has money?

Ownership does. Although, if he plans to blow it up, it is quite a waste of a nice castle so probably unlikely. He’d buy a piece of land without a castle if he didn’t want a castle.

I couldn’t have explained it better, thank you very much @MTF

Lol, no, you couldn’t have.

Me and @MTF ago way back. We agree on a lot, but we don’t agree here. Just like the folks yelling at me over being 100% opposed to government lockdowns in every form or fashion, I stayed consistently liberty oriented.

I value my liberty, my property rights, and my freedoms over a small urban forest.

I do however also, as I said much earlier in this discussion, value nature, clean air, clean water, and a clean overall environment. I just don’t believe that the government is the best vehicle to uphold these values. Considering they are at fault for this very scenario and also the biggest polluters on earth, I’d say I have a very strong argument.

I literally value that commerce, that piece of the city that was developed, in a country I don’t even live in, more than I value the trees in that area. As will hundreds or even thousands of people that move there. They too will probably be hypocritical of new development.

To say that there will be “nothing left” is very hyperbolic, particularly with shrinking global birth rates, we are not even close. Go fly on an airplane and tell me there aren’t enough trees.


This, to me, is a beautiful sight. To me, it represents progress, wealth and prosperity to everyone in the supply chain and competitive pricing for consumers. Human cooperation on an epic scale. I also see an awful lot of trees there as well for Houston inside of the beltway.

 

[GPM]

Be afraid everyone, be afraid

 

[GPM]

I don't know about you all, but properties with trees on them sell for a premium here. Funny that, people pay a premium for nice land, so it stays nice. Capitalism in this case keeps the land beautiful.

Since everyone seems to think capitalism is just slash and burn, I wonder how a city development under communism looks. I bet they take real good care of the environment at all times.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mario_fastlaner]

Lol, no, you couldn’t have.

So as I said.

Go fly on an airplane and tell me there aren’t enough trees.

Wait, are you serious or are you trolling?

so yesterday morning there was cold outside, now tell me there is global warming.

same logic

 

[Kak]

I don't know about you all, but properties with trees on them sell for a premium here. Funny that, people pay a premium for nice land, so it stays nice. Capitalism in this case keeps the land beautiful.

Since everyone seems to think capitalism is just slash and burn, I wonder how a city development under communism looks. I bet they take real good care of the environment at all times.

 

[Mario_fastlaner]

I don't know about you all, but properties with trees on them sell for a premium here. Funny that, people pay a premium for nice land, so it stays nice. Capitalism in this case keeps the land beautiful.

Since everyone seems to think capitalism is just slash and burn, I wonder how a city development under communism looks. I bet they take real good care of the environment at all times.

I really don’t understand why you keep call people that has doubts on THIS capitalistic model communists.
You know, there aren’t only capitalism and communism.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

So as I said.

Wait, are you serious or are you trolling?

so yesterday morning there was cold outside, now tell me there is global warming.

same logic

1000000% serious. There are ample trees. If that’s all you got out of my post, you didn’t read it very hard.

I even have several of my own that I haven’t cut down… Yet.

Now if you'll excuse me, Northern Tool is running a two for one sale on Stihl chainsaws and pesticides. I want to get there before they close.

 

[GPM]

I really don’t understand why you keep call people that has doubts on THIS capitalistic model communists.
You know, there aren’t only capitalism and communism.

Oh lol, what we have now is not even remotely capitalism. Capitalism isn't "hand the cartel (government) money and have them stop my competition".

 

[Timmy C]

They are bribing us with a vaccine F*cking passport now!?

I will not comply with this F*cking bullshit by Scott Morrison.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ExpbXUr3wM

My country is dead to me.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

"Capitalism" with a little bit of government: "I only put a little bit of shit in your soup, why do you keep saying its no longer edible?"

I also think people don't realise how much of the world is not developed. If you want trees, there isn't a shortage of them. The vast majority of the Earth's surface land is completely undeveloped.

 

[Madame Peccato]

Relying on the government to fix the environment is a bizarre idea. The existence of governments and public property is why we reached this point.

Right now, chemical industries dump their toxic chemicals in the oceans. Regular people throw away plastic in lakes and rivers. Why? Because they can. Rivers, lakes, etc. are public.

Western governments realized their mistakes recently. Too little too late? Probably not, but only if daddy lets people figure things out.

The problem is twofold:
1) If the most efficient way to dispose of toxic waste is to dump it into a lake, companies will do it.
2) These companies don't have to find a better way to dispose of their waste.

Until Kyoto protocol in 1997, nobody cared. Governments let people to do whatever they wanted with pollution.

Now, the question from statists always turns into: "if government failed to protect the environment, how are private owners supposed to?". It's way easier.

For starters, companies have to own the land/water they use to dispose of their chemicals. Or they have to pay for the privilege of using someone else's landfill.

This leads to a massive improvement in water quality for the general population. People will only buy water from clean lakes. If companies buy a lake for their activities, the lake will become unusable. There is a huge opportunity cost in that.

You reach a point where it makes more sense to develop a better way to treat waste. Research costs money, but the government is a business' biggest cost, so it's hard to justify R&D costs.

Plus, companies have to fight all sorts of regulations. Let's say you find a way to develop an amazing disposal method, but it uses a material banned by the government. Good luck getting it approved, even if your creation is 100% harmless.

The bureaucratic machine will stop you. Look at insulin in the States for an example (source). There is a government approved monopoly on insulin, forced through the FDA. You can't make your own insuline. You have to buy it from one of the 3 approved makers. The makers of course all raise the prices together. They don't care. They are a legally-protected monopoly.

Governments have been ok with F*cking up the environment for decades. Many governments still don't care. I'm sure you can send Xi Jinping a letter asking nicely to stop polluting. He will think you're off your rails. It's his country, not yours. The same principle applies to private property. Or should, if private property was respected.

Would you trust these people to not F*ck up again?

Remember, they are the ones stifling innovation through coercion. They have a gazillion pointless regulations in place. They tax anyone who wants to make the world a better place. They waste trillions to do whatever the F*ck they are doing.

The U.S. spends almost 800 billion dollars in military expenses. Other countries spend billions too. Italy for example spends about 30 billions in their military. Every year. Here's the source.

These are the people you are trusting. If you think democracies exist to advance civilization, the propaganda system fooled you.

Back to the environment...consumer behavior is changing, prompting companies to change. That's the only thing that matters. Consumers. If consumers want environmentally-conscious companies, the companies will change. If consumers don't care, neither will the companies.

But if the government makes it impossible for companies to change, or for better companies to exist, then you have a problem.

 

[Ocean Man]

They are bribing us with a vaccine f*cking passport now!?

I will not comply with this f*cking bullshit by Scott Morrison.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ExpbXUr3wM

My country is dead to me.

They already have something like this in Korea as well.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[GPM]

No "passport" in Canada yet, but starting on the 5th there are special rules for vaxinated travelers. It won't be long until our retarded government decides it's easier to include it on the physical passport.

Oh, and Canada also passed the Bill which allows them to censor social media that they disagree with. I think it has to go through another layer of government to be 100% done. However, it passed through our MPs and Prime Minister with ease and that is frightening. They literally tried to paint anyone who disagreed with them as racists and said that they wanted a racist Canada.

 

[Timmy C]

 

[Timmy C]

No "passport" in Canada yet, but starting on the 5th there are special rules for vaxinated travelers. It won't be long until our retarded government decides it's easier to include it on the physical passport.

Oh, and Canada also passed the Bill which allows them to censor social media that they disagree with. I think it has to go through another layer of government to be 100% done. However, it passed through our MPs and Prime Minister with ease and that is frightening. They literally tried to paint anyone who disagreed with them as racists and said that they wanted a racist Canada.

Man that totally sucks.
It is very scary and cant believe what is happening.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Freedom: Does It Really Exist? - LewRockwell

“We don’t make the decisions, just does what we’re told where and when we’re told. We lives by rules made somewhere else by sons a bitches don’t know nothin’ about this place.” ~ Annie Proulx, The Shipping News Ah, freedom; the thing most seemingly sought, but very rarely (never) attained...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[GPM]

Freedom, lol. Just do what your masters tell you. Guess what guys, driving your car at night is now a ticketable offence. Everyone just bend over and pay it because we said so.

Calgary just lowered the speed limits from 50 to 40km/hr in most residential zones. To combat the people speeding through them. So my lowering the speeds and increasing fines that is somehow going to stop people who already ignored the limit of 50. And everyone who follows the rules once again bend over and take it.

What does one do? I plan on voting with my wallet and leaving. I'm already setting it up to be gone 6 months a year, pilot starts this winter. Soon to increase that to 10 months I hope. I will return for mountains and summer lakes and that's it. Some small town can take some tourism dollars from me and the rest of the country can burn for all I care.