Would you describe your views as Anti-Capitalism?

Question

And how strong is your belief that man is causing climate change?

Answer 1

I am profoundly a supporter of a free market.

I believe the scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that mankind is almost certainly causing climate change.  I am also highly suspicious that certain posters on YA are paid oil company hacks -- or are simply amateurs who refuse to act on behalf of a younger generation.

Answer 2

I'm certainly not anti-capitalist.  As long as there's government regulation, I think capitalism is a pretty good system (as many other answerers have explained).  I don't think it's necessarily the best system - I think ideally socialism could be a good system if applied correctly, or perhaps a combination of socialism and capitalism (and note that socialism is not the same as communism).

But regardless, I'm not anti-capitalism, as long as it's properly regulated.  And my belief that humans are causing the current global warming (and thus indirectly, climate change) is extremely strong (on the order of 99% confidence).

Answer 3

No I still have faith in the free market, at least from the stand point that corporate leaders should sponsor the familiar. Too many reforms and oversea free trade agreements(NAFTA) have devastated the American way of life. Socialism is a excellent concept when written on paper. The ones enacted fall to the waste land of bureaucratic "BS". Examples are the social welfare system, public education, and social security, just to name a few.

I can't deny man's effect on the environment. Though I don't see it as an overwhelming factor. "( Not enough proof)"

Answer 4

My views are pro life first. Nothing the matter with making money except not at the expense of our children's future.

I don't have strong beliefs that man is causing climate change, I have objective, qualified, temperature science that academia couldn't see in their calculators.

The Co2 theory is seriously flawed, why are we talking about heat trapping gases while we generate heat close to boiling temperature on the surface of the planet with every new building. Go to the following link and see what academia, meteorologists, NASA and the UN couldn't see. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h...

Answer 5

Freedom is the ideal, though never fully achievable. Capitalism is the inevitable offspring of freedom. It is fed by the best of enterprising ideals and just as easily gorged with greed. Capitalism is the human activity that freely reflects everything that is good and rotten in human beings.  It is most vigorous.

If a profit can be made (and it certainly can) from doing what is right for the planet then  Capitalism will be first in line, sleeves rolled up, ready to take on the job. It will deliver.

Globally, it is those countries  which are free, and that use capitalism at least to some degree in their economic designs that do  incorporate at least a good deal of environmental husbandry into their endeavors and economies.  

Man must either currently have some impact on Earthly  climate, or will in the future. Our numbers are getting significant. To what degree we contribute to deleterious changes seems difficult to quantify. I suspect a  fair measure of politics has gotten in the way of the objectivity of the Science.

We must  keep a clean nest, but we must also  be free to fly.

Answer 6

It's a good question.  There is a very simple answer.

Ok, not so simple.  Hold on before you thumbs up.



The economy is a subset of the environment.  

You can’t have an economy without natural resources and a functioning biosphere.  But our socio-economic system treats economics as separate from the environment; and that resources are unlimited. If you look closely, you will find that late 18th century economic models, the ones our current economy is based on, are based on models from physics.  The problem is the economic models are open ended, on both ends, literally.  They do not consider the source of the input – natural resources; nor the limitations of natural resources – the resources of the world are finite, as is the ability of the biosphere to absorb our waste and at the same time continue to function.  

As soon as you realize that the economy is dependent on the environment you can see the argument for a sustainable socialistic system.  Capitalism does not protect the environment because Capitalism rewards people for exploiting the environment.  Libertarianism does not protect the environment because it fails to consider the interconnectedness of society and the environment.  Socialism is not Communism.  Communism is just another form of totalitarianism, totalitarian collectivism.  Socialism is democratic collectivism.  Socialism forces us to work together for the benefit or all, regardless of the benefit or detriment to a particular individual or stakeholder.  

Of course, Socialism would take power away from current stakeholders and so they are vehemently opposed to it.  The reason (as others have said) that people resist the new idea is because it goes against the vested interest.  However, it this case the vested interest is the entire world economy and political system.  The entire modern world civilization is based on cheap, concentrated energy - oil, coal and gas.  There are entire treatises devoted to the rise of modern civilization and fossil fuels.  

Environmentalists are not crazed Communists trying to create a one world government to force you to submit to their wacky beliefs.  They are trying to save the world, which means they are trying to save us from ourselves.  If we think we don’t need to be saved from our destructive and unsustainable ways, then that is my definition of denial.  

Who has fomented this idea that the Socialists are using Environmentalism as a ruse to scare the masses into giving up their God given Capitalist freedoms?  Reactionary minds, searching for a rationalization, blame the messenger.  They invented the socialist-communist-environmentalist conspiracy because they are running out of scapegoats.

In the US we've been bamboozled by the cornucopian free market capitalists for so long we've forgotten how to think.

I'm a libertarian right up to the point where you begin to infringe on my right to live in an unpolluted, sustainable world. The trouble is, you will find, that the "straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion" is that

everything is connected and interdependent.

So the libertarian ideal that I should be able to do whatever I want whenever I want without interference is a dangerous fallacy.

We need a third way that incorporates democracy so that all stakeholders can sit at the table, libertarian ideals so that we may be free to pursue our happiness and social controls so that no one (set of stakeholders) can usurp the right to a clean and sustainable world from the rest of us.

edit:

Magnus, Please don’t take this as condescending, but I have to call you out on your statements.  

They display a lack of insight, a lack of historical knowledge, confusion over the difference between socialism and communism, a pathological adherence to dogma, and a paranoid obsession with global conspiracies.

It’s really a conflated mess, but I’ll try to address your points.

We –already- live in a mixed economy, a mix of capitalism and socialism. The European Union is a collection of democratic socialist societies.  In our modern world, it’s really just a matter of degree.

We used to work together because we all knew it was in all our best interest.  Pure capitalism, the type that was invented in the late 1800’s, the kind that gave a corporation all the rights of an individual but none of the responsibilities, removed that social compact. It’s called Social Darwinism and it’s an abhorrent, disgusting concept.  I should be able to claw my way to the top, even if it means stomping your face in the dirt.  Aboriginal societies don’t allow this.  It was allowed in our society because we were tricked into it.  Freedom for all to reach the top!  Dude, everyone can’t be at the top.  There can be only one winner.  When you read about the income gap between the richest and the rest of us that is increasing exponentially, what do you think they are talking about?  

We know, from historical experience, going back further than Bob mentions, that pure capitalism leads to a system of economic feudalism.  The resource holders at the top mainly got their resources by inheritance or other questionable means.  Don’t tell me they worked with pure honest motives.  It’s still going on today.  I just read yesterday that landowners in Appalachia are being bamboozled out of the true value of their newly profitable natural gas leases by unscrupulous brokers.  The working people at the bottom are foreclosed from the opportunity for their libertarian happiness because the laws are made by the same people who control the resources, so that they can continue to control the resources!  People are not fair and it’s not a fair system.  Laws are necessary to prevent this.  If you look back to the turn of the century the Robber Barons created their fortunes by literally killing off thousands upon thousands of poor working people who had no choice – submit or starve.  When electric lighting was introduced and 24x7x365 production began, workers were expected to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, with one extra day off and one double shift per month!  Only fair labor laws stopped this. Ford would start up the factory, people would pour in from the countryside for work (lured really), dye their hair black so they would be considered young and strong enough to endure the factory work, work for a few months and be dismissed!

The old ways of simple sustainability would be extinguished and people would become dependent on the central control.

Who wants sustainable prosperity for us all and who wants the top 1% to eventually control everything while the rest of us get divided between a service class, the working poor and the destitute?  

I know the pure Capitalists, the Social Darwinists, don’t want prosperity for us all, they want everything and everyone else should grovel at the Altar of the Almighty Dollar – or starve.

And get everything they will if people like you don’t wake up.

And starve we will if we don’t find a way to protect this planet.  You think you’re safe, but you know what?  You can’t eat money.

edit:

Last comment.

I'm a free-market capitalist because to claim otherwise would make me a hypocrite.  

Man has unquestionably caused the environmental degradation we witness, and he is responsible for fixing it.

People are irrational, fact.  Therefore markets are irrational and must be controlled.  A century of experience has taught us this and thus we have our mixed economies.

We need to tilt the balance more toward preserving our common resource for the benefit of all, not just toward short term gains for the few.

It's out of balance now and that is why the environment continues to degrade.

Free markets can and will deliver, but not until they consider all the costs; which are currently external to the system and not accounted for.

Answer 7

As a private land-owner that's owned a business and competed for economic gain, I'd say I'm a capitalist.

Capitalism is characterized by: private property, the right to compete for economic gain, and free market forces to determine the price of goods and services.  But there is also a necessary role for government (people often ignore this essential ingredient) in a capitalistic economy and that is to regulate and protect.

The government role of protection includes all the public areas.  Those areas that are not private property include the atmosphere, the rivers, the ocean, the resources beneath public lands, etc.

With those concepts, I believe capitalism, properly regulated, is a big part of the solution for global warming (which, to answer part 2 of your question, I am convinced is caused by man).

Answer 8

I don't believe that man is causing climate change, nor has he been the cause any of the other times that it's happened.

To be a AGW believer, I don't see how you could be anything but anti-capitalist, since your goal is a socialist, one-world government.

Answer 9

Nope.  I'd describe myself as full-fledged capitalist.  I believe mankind has the best ability to reach their fullest potential for innovation and creation all under the umbrella of captialism.  And subscribing to climate change as something that is caused by man is nothing more than the an overblown part of the earth's natual cycle of heating and cooling perpetrated by radical media, politicians and unethical scientists.  The research and evidence is out there.

And Dr. Blob, are you seriously defending socialism?  Socialism is nothing more than oppressive system that is quickly corrupted by those that reach the top.  Capitalism bypasses that by allowing the greatest opportunity for anyone to reach the top.  And to label it "democratic socialism" is an oxy moron.  Democracy is inherently based upon the invididual while socialism is inherently based on the society.  You go on saying "Socialism forces us to work together for the benefit or all, regardless of the benefit or detriment to a particular individual or stakeholder."   This might be the most ridculously profound statement.  You are essentially admitting socialism is an oppressive system at its core.  No regard for indivudual and, somewhat metaphorically speaking, all done at the end of a gun.  Not to mention, capitalism has done more for the enironment in recent history than any socialist regime has done in its entire existence.  I suggest you drop the self-labeled title of "Dr." since you literally have no concept of freedom or what inherent dangers you seem to be promoting under your thinly vailed agenda.  If you do a little examination of any historical period, you'll see that socialism does nothing positive for anyone under its control except the few that are pulling the strings and forced causes like the environment pale in comparison to anything a free market capitalist society can accomplish.

Answer 10

I am a productive member of a capitalist society.  I consume less than most people I know. Not just because I'm more environmentally aware, but because consuming for consumptions sake doesn't necessarily make me happy.

One respondent wrote that all living things pollute.  I guess one could argue that, in the narrowest definition.  But none can come close to polluting on the scale that humans do.  It is that degree of pollution, the planetary scope of our impacts that is accelerating natural cycles and causing global climate change.  Mitigating this will not necessarily have negative impacts on the economy, locally or worldwide, if implemented conscientiously.  I think that after a decade or so of adjustment and uncertainty, the economy will be stimulated by the need for change.  

I'm not much for labels.  People like to use them as weapons, as ammunition.  I'm an American living on Planet Earth, and I will do my part to ensure that we use all tools -- capitalism included -- to fight the impacts of global climate change.

Magnus:

Before you attack Dr. Blob for his (perceived) views on socialism, consider how many institutions and programs in the U.S. are based on socialistic principles.

Answer 11

It is hard to look at the charts matching C02 emissions from human sources and rising temperatures and not see a connection.  Money is obviously very important, but if we turn the planet into another Venus our money will burn up along with us.  Even if it never gets that bad, the cost of losing low lying cities...New York, Miami, Amsterdam, and many more, the cost of turning the American midwest from the grain basket of the world into another Sahara Desert, would be astronomical.  It may already be too late.  I am fine with taking cost and economics into account, just count all the cost--losing New York, losing the productive capacity of the Midwest.

Answer 12

Not me.

Capitalism is the mechanism for generating the high standard of living that we enjoy as it tends to distribute labour and resources in a way that provides the greatest productivity.  People who don't like the idea of capitalism generally still benefit from it.

I doubt human activity is having a measurable effect on the climate.

Answer 13

Good question.   Starred.

I'm not anti-capitalism.  With tweaks, it's by far the best economic system.  But history has shown that unregulated capitalism simply doesn't work.   History has PROVEN we need organizations like the Food and Drug Administration to keep foods and drugs reasonably safe.  The Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation for banks. The Federal Aviation Administration for airplanes, the Securities and Exchange Commission for stocks.  Etc.  

And the Environmental Protection Agency for the environment.  Under unregulated capitalism, in the 1960s, much of our water was undrinkable and unfishable, urban rivers were cesspools to be avoided; and urban air stank, and was a health hazard.  Anybody want to go back to that?

I'm 99.99% sure that man is causing MOST of the present warming.  I'm "only" 99% sure that will get really bad.   A new scientific report says we're already feeling many bad effects.  But maybe a miracle will save us.

I don't think it would be smart to bet the future on a miracle or a 100:1 shot, and not take action.  The vast majority of scientists and pretty much every world leader agree about that.

Answer 14

i would only say not really a hundred percent because there are some natural causes of pollution that is happening.

but i'm not anti-capitalist. i do believe man can do a part in causing climate change because of the man made pollution. all living creatures pollute and pollution can cause negative effects in the climate.

Answer 15

I am pro capitalist pro liberty.

AGW is a socialist trojan horse.

Answer 16

I believe that man has some impact on climate change, what the impact is?  I doubt any one can quantify that, any more then can state what the future will bring.  

Capitalism is the engine that drives our economy, however my concern with it currently is the drive for greed. Dr. Blob is somewhat correct about capitalism, without a inward sense of morality certain people in power will exploit resources for their own pocket book, then it becomes a dog eat dog system of economics.  However I still hold true to the ideal that their are those leaders in industry that would use the natural resources wisely and still prove to the world that capitalism utilized by the those with honor and integrity is the best way to move a society forward.

Answer 17

Whatev - if by Capitalism you mean making short-term profit a priority over human health, the health of the planet, dignity and moral responsibility to treat others with respect then sure go ahead and call me "Anti-Capitalist."

What a lot of folks fail to realize that by being conscious of our 'waste' helps the bottom line.  Why destroy the very world we are dependent upon for survival - as an individual or as a business.

Irony of ironies - WalMart at least pays lipservice to understanding this very basic notion of business.  Waste not, want not.

Many folks are simply too politicized however to see the truth and common sense in all that... it's really too bad.

So to the haters:  keep hating on efforts to increase efficiency, eliminate waste, protect our markets and supply of resources necessary to conduct a capitalist society.  Keep on hating on organizations that fight for fair and proper treatment of the labor force.  That's OK!

While y'all are making a mess of your business - I'll be improving my bottom line!

How does this relate to my belief in man causing climate change?  Well I assume what the question is "advocating" is what the first responder described - A trojan horse for socialism - i.e. gov control and intervention to destroy the free market.  Using GW or CC as an excuse to push a socialist agenda...

Well I think that notion is just listening to too much talk radio.  It's almost too ridiculous, general and broad to respond too really, but hopefully I have helped frame the Q above.

It's no secret human beings have an effect on the planet.  Even if it were proven with a very very small margin of error that humans weren't contributing to CC I would still advocate on moral and sensible principle alone that we do what it takes to reduce our impact, footprint, whatev you want to call it.  Reduce waste.  

Live efficiently - there's no need to take a huge dump in our living room when we can use the toilet - or eat better food and excercise to produce healthier stool.

You hear what I am saying?  Or are you closed to me?