Socialism is bad for the environment

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

For instance Beijing. The state owns the urban land and most of the manufacturing there.. If the state owns the land and the manufacturing, it is also their duty to take care of it. But they don't.

Thank you for trying to answer. However, you're still speaking in fairly hopeless generalities.

The problem, per se, with pollution in China is, specifically, that the government is avoiding any "regulation" that might inhibit economic growth ... which is the opposite of what you seem to be promoting here, which would be a "lack of government interference" i.e. laissez-faire capitalism.

In fact, it is the attempt to emulate (and/or compete with) the Western capitalist economies built in or originating in the rampant industrialization of the past century that has landed China in its current environmental mess, not unlike what was seen in the UK and America at the end of the 19th/early 20th centuries.

Next?

originally posted by: Hellhound604
Weird, I live in Norway, a socialistic democracry. The green movement is quite large this side, except for the 'bible-belt' where everybody is infatuated by the USA. The further east you go, the more liberal, socialist and green the people get. The biggest environmental destruction takes place in the 'bible-belt', where a lot of people are totally into capitalism and raping the environment for maximum profit. The people on the east helps each other and try their best to conserve the environment, and yes, the liberal (socialist) and green parties are voted into power here, and we have huge green forest, unpolluted air, etc....

Thanks for a factual, first-hand testimony to actual facts!

That's in short supply here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The state is the landlord and the one polluting the environment. Who do you go to in order to put a stop to it? The landlord?

China has been focusing on fixing their mess only since they have begun to adopt capitalist principles. Though only a correlation, it doesn't seem to be an invalid one.

In a free market economy, the public can reflect their environmental concerns through the market and through the protection of private property.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

The state is the landlord and the one polluting the environment. Who do you go to in order to put a stop to it? The landlord?

China has been focusing on fixing their mess only since they have begun to adopt capitalist principles. Though only a correlation, it doesn't seem to be an invalid one.

In a free market economy, the public can reflect their environmental concerns through the market and through the protection of private property.

Unrestrained industry is polluting the environment. Again, you're speaking in such simplistic terms as to be unintelligible.

"The landlord" ... really? You're reducing the situation in China to the redress of grievance against a "landlord."

China is working on addressing pollution for the same reason that the US did ... they're destroying their land and their people. It has nothing to do with the relative "capitialist quotient" that you subjectively assign to them.

And now you're just blathering about "free markets" ... more vapid idealism presented as fact. Point us to this "free market" that you're referring to as an example ... there must be one, right? For you to have this specific information about it along with it's environmental record ... where is it?

Name the country/economy/system you're alluding to: specifically.

I don't believe you will, because based on what you've said so far ... you have nothing specific to say.

Your arguments are ideological claptrap rapidly shown to be utterly without any factual or evidential basis.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

The state is the landlord and the one polluting the environment. Who do you go to in order to put a stop to it? The landlord?

China has been focusing on fixing their mess only since they have begun to adopt capitalist principles. Though only a correlation, it doesn't seem to be an invalid one.

In a free market economy, the public can reflect their environmental concerns through the market and through the protection of private property.

Unrestrained industry is polluting the environment. Again, you're speaking in such simplistic terms as to be unintelligible.

"The landlord" ... really? You're reducing the situation in China to the redress of grievance against a "landlord."

China is working on addressing pollution for the same reason that the US did ... they're destroying their land and their people. It has nothing to do with the relative "capitialist quotient" that you subjectively assign to them.

And now you're just blathering about "free markets" ... more vapid idealism presented as fact. Point us to this "free market" that you're referring to as an example ... there must be one, right? For you to have this specific information about it along with it's environmental record ... where is it?

Name the country/economy/system you're alluding to: specifically.

I don't believe you will, because based on what you've said so far ... you have nothing specific to say.

Your arguments are ideological claptrap rapidly shown to be utterly without any factual or evidential basis.

Yes. The Chinese state owns the urban land, which I already stated. They are both literally and figuratively the landlord. No one else owns the land. I don't see how this is in need of arguing, but I'll let you go ahead and try.

That is a specific, concrete example, where you can even go view it for yourself. Yes, the industry is unregulated by the state. No one can end that by simply stop paying for it, whereas in a free market economy (I understand its need for quotation marks sometimes) people can stop paying for it and it will lose money and fail.

I know you're just going to insult me and go in circles, despite my attempts at a reasonable conversation, but I'm not at all surprised.

a reply to: TheTory

Pardon the interjection...

The actual term is Democratic Socialism, they are still an elected, representative government and there is still private ownership of both personal and business property. They all have really good environmental policies and records.

The further east you go, the more liberal, socialist and green the people get. The biggest environmental destruction takes place in the 'bible-belt', where a lot of people are totally into capitalism and raping the environment for maximum profit.

a reply to: Hellhound604

That's ironic knowing that Norway has a vested interest in the melting of the ice caps for oil exploration, ready to rape the environment, so to say. I guess it's not so bad when you can't see what's going on under water.

Granted, Norway is one of the most innovative country when it comes to environmental concerns.

originally posted by: thinline
It's really quite simple. Socialism is a big pyramid scheme. You always need a bigger base to pay for the people that came ahead of you. Since Socialism always needs an expanding base. That means an ever expanding population. That population increase will need more land, more resources, more corporatiins, basically everything a good socialist marches against.

EH? why does socialism need an expanding base ? Please explain. Capitalism definitely needs an expanding base it is totally dependant on growth DUH!

a reply to: Kali74

The actual term is Democratic Socialism, they are still an elected, representative government and there is still private ownership of both personal and business property. They all have really good environmental policies and records.

I never saw that in the thread title nor the OP. I guess I assumed we were speaking of socialist states. My mistake.

a reply to: TheTory

/yawn

I've insulted you because I've asked for facts? Specifics? You've called me a child ... that's the closest thing to "an insult" here, and you're the responsible party. Sounds to me like you weren't expecting someone to call you on your baseless blustering about "socialism" and now, finding yourself over your head, want to whine about meaningless and non-existent insults.

Let's review what your current formulation is: you are stating that because "the Chinese state owns the land" (which you have done nothing to prove and is not factual: there's plenty of private ownership in China) that they are "the landlord" (wouldn't that make the State techinically "the owners"? but I digress - that's the least of your logical problems) that the environmental mess that much of China finds itself is is due to some vague concept of "socialism" (which you have still yet to offer any sort of definition of, or examples of) and the lack of ephemeral "property rights" (which is not the case in China.)

The current PRC Constitution, as most recently amended in 2004, clearly provides for the protection of “private property.” According to Article 13 of the Constitution, citizens’ lawful private property is “inviolable.” The same article also states: “[t]he state, in accordance with law, protects the rights of citizens to private property and to its inheritance.”

Chinese Law on Private Ownership Of Property

You have nothing; your arguments are empty of meaning, and your logic is void of facts.

Indeed, there's no reason to continue the conversation but not because of "insults" or circular arguments (which I find HILARIOUS that you're trying to cite me with, LOL) but because you've realized you don't get to use simplistic, jingoistic, faux-Austrian school claptrap with me and not be called out on it ... and now you've resorted to direct and obvious lies.

Good day.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Bravo. Someone who cries for facts yet doesn't produce one. Someone who insults yet claims moral superiority. Someone who says I have nothing but will producing nothing. Someone who claims to be logical illogically. It appears we are in the midst of a sophist.

No need to obfuscate what I said, or reformilate it into something you like while claiming it is my formulation. Everything I said is what I said and meant.

Good day indeed.

a reply to: Gryphon66

From your same article:

According to the Constitution, land in cities is owned by the State; land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by the State or by collectives. (Constitution, art. 10.) Although individuals cannot privately own land, they may obtain transferable land-use rights for a number of years for a fee. There are a series of laws and regulations regulating the land-use rights and ownership of residential property, including:

The Property Rights Law [Wuquan Fa], promulgated by the National People’s Congress (NPC) on March 16, 2007, effective October 1, 2007;
The Law on Land Management [Tudi Guanli Fa], promulgated by the NPC Standing Committee on June 25, 1986, revised August 28, 2004;
The Land Registration Measures [Tudi Dengji Banfa], promulgated by the Ministry of Land and Resources on December 30, 2007, effective February 1, 2008);
The Interim Regulations Concerning the Assignment and Transfer of the Right to Use State-Owned Land in Urban Areas [Chengzhen Guoyou Tudi Shiyong Quan Churang He Zhuanrang Zanxing Tiaoli], Decree No. 55 of the State Council, May 19, 1990 (hereinafter “Assignment Regulations”); and
The Law on the Administration of Urban Real Estate [Chengshi Fangdichan Guanli Fa], promulgated by the NPC Standing Committee on August 30, 2007, effective on the same day (hereinafter “Urban Real Estate Law”).
According to the Property Rights Law, the land-use right is a “usufructuary right” that allows the right-holder, the usufructuary, to legally possess, use, and benefit from property owned by another. (Property Rights Law, art. 117.)

Sounds exactly like what I said.

a reply to: TheTory

Actually it only says that Socialism is bad for the environment because it requires constant population growth. The OP is not specific.

a reply to: thinline

Rubbish, Utter nonsence, the only environment Socialism is bad for the personal Environment of the ultra wealthy.

Socialism, proper socialism not communism educates and puts in place public services that can support such industrys as recycling, environment management, the only downside for those whom thin humans are nothing but useless animal's and view the rest of the human race as being in the way is that socialism create's a fair society in which children have a higher chance of living to old age boosting populaton density and so spoiling there own personal view of the world as other people are in the way.

Poor socialism and Poor Capitalism - Capitalism in general is the most harmful thing to ever happen to the environment as of course it seeks' the cheapest way to dispose of waiste and does not care about the long term implication's, it also needs large populations (So is the true pyramid scheme not socialism with is a shared wealth concept so no real pyramid there) - are actually both terrible for the environment (Ecological not personal though Capitalism broadly speaking is worse for the personal environment both physically and mentally).

In fact in socialism Environment management is a big part of the equation as you need to manage the country for everyone not just the elite and there golf course's etc.

a reply to: TheTory

What gutless nonsense ...

Here are your claims:

originally posted by: TheTory
Without property rights, there is no way to utilize the system in order to defend property from pollution. Russia, China, Cuba, Somalia, Venezuala, North Korea – not exactly countries known for their environmentalism.

... and when queried on the basis of what "socialism" this tripe is supposed to allude to your response was ...

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Marxist socialism.

These are what are known as CLAIMS. That means, you, as the person who claims that something is true, are responsible for substantiating it with facts, evidence, or at least cogent argument ... which you have utterly failed to do.

You gestured wildly at a list of "socialist states" and a university-study-based "environmental scoresheet" as if that answers any question ... and said nothing about the thing you quoted ... no focus, no further emphasis ... nothing.

You seem to suffer under the misunderstanding that all "socialism" is the same ... and you seem to think that "Marxist socialism" comprises all socialist thought.

You bring up modern China in simplistic, generalized if not parochial terms and even when you are shown that you are mistaken about the status of Chinese "property rights" you try to claim "well, that's what I was saying." How pathetic.

Let me be clear. You aren't saying anything about socialism, socialist states, socialist systems, theories or anything of that nature. You are regurgitating garden-variety nonsense about "free markets" (without giving any examples) and then, you want to try to cover the absolute ZERO content of your posts by implying sophomoric BS that somehow I've insulted you (when you are the one calling me names) and implying that I have provided no facts ... when you QUOTED material I provided as backup.

That's right, if you were paying attention you would notice my direct citation above for the one claim that I DID MAKE in response to the utter nonsense you were spouting. You QUOTED IT, and then tried to claim that was what YOU were saying. You claimed that China does not have private property. I easily demonstrated with the lowest-hanging Google fruit that was absurd. But that, somehow, is "what you were saying."

Please.

And then, you tried to waffle and bluster and use silly ad hom attacks on me (after you think I've left the conversation) to distract from the fact that your arguments are empty.

It's not working.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't need a "definition"; its not intended to be a definition......its intended to be a "general description". BTW, I applaud your shameless defense of socialism.............now that I'm retired, I'm a proud Socialist myself! All I care about is MORE FREE STUFF!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't need a "definition"; its not intended to be a definition......its intended to be a "general description". BTW, I applaud your shameless defense of socialism.............now that I'm retired, I'm a proud Socialist myself! All I care about is MORE FREE STUFF!

Nah, you don't need no derned definition, nor any backup neither! Why, you're a consarned American, ain't ya?

You can just say whatever you goldarned want to and expect it to float on by, by diggedy ... Yeee Haww!

*fires off dual pistols ala Yosemite Sam*

What a maroon!

You're not a Socialist if you're interested in "free stuff" ... if you think your Social Security is "free" you must not have paid much attention to your paychecks over the years ... unless you retired from Disability or something ... but none of that has anything to do with socialism, with the exception that the word "social" is present in both.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was referenced nearly 25 times in your word salad. I'm flattered. "You do this", "you do that" – this is playground stuff.

I gave a clear example and it was dismissed for no reason.

The so called facts used to support your rebuttal is self-refuting. This sloppy fact checking, which apparently was selectively read, even now, is the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue here. Go back and read this low hanging fruit because it clearly states:

According to the Constitution, land in cities is owned by the State; land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by the State or by collectives. (Constitution, art. 10.) Although individuals cannot privately own land, they may obtain transferable land-use rights for a number of years for a fee. There are a series of laws and regulations regulating the land-use rights and ownership of residential property...

...According to the Property Rights Law, the land-use right is a “usufructuary right” that allows the right-holder, the usufructuary, to legally possess, use, and benefit from property owned by another. (Property Rights Law, art. 117.)

I explicitly said urban property was owned by the state. That is exactly what this article says.

You are just wrong, and ironically, guilty of everything you're trying to charge me with in your flattering analysis.

a reply to: TheTory

Oh, you're one of those. I hadn't read much of your stuff, but I can see we're wasting our time here. Still, a few points ...

You were referenced in my reply to you? Huh. Isn't that funny? It's like I was talking to you or something.

You haven't given any examples. You made ridiculous statements, were called on it and asked for evidence, (which seems to have insulted you somehow ... in a short space of time here, you seem to expect that your bluster is just going to be accepted without question) and since that, you've been trying the typical forum-rat tactics to make this about me, bringing up links that prove nothing at all, and inserting mere bombast and hoping someone perceives it as logic and reason.

You refuse to answer the most basic questions about your claims, as seen above. This is because your claims are garbage without basis. You aren't talking about the effects of socialism on the environment, you're talking, obliquely, about unrestrained industry. You were mistaken about the status of "property rights" in China, and when shown the facts, you want to adjust your "argument" to fit what you were shown.

You want to pretend that "socialism" is the same implementation in Russia, China, and even Somalia of all places. One coheisive set of actions and beliefs, which, by the way, seem to fit your simplistic, garden-variety depiction of what socialism is. When asked, you claim that you're being insulted (while you're insulting) and that you've already provided information (when all you've done is make claims.)

As you reveal with the standard trolling vocabulary ... these posts are nothing more than boring stylings of the typical Internet forum-rat. Postings such as this are the most dishonest kind of net trash, and I am sorry I tried to engage you in a real conversation. I won't make that mistake again, as I know what you are now. I have your number.

Declare your victory and talk about me. You "win."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hats off, sir. Articulate and precise.