Is neoliberal society trying to save nature by defining it and putting a price tag on it?

I want to help somebody explore this subject by subjecting it to the scrutiny of ATS. I can't think of a better group of minds to present this to.

Neoliberalism, or the idea that business should be left alone, privatized and free from the burdens of taxes or regulation in addition to being allowed unfettered Freedom among the global consumer Market is theorized to have the capability to save our environment..

In its heart neoliberalism has faith in the exceptional ability of the market to meet the manifold needs of the people all over the world including the need for sustainable resource use and protecting the environment

Do you think it's true that in our society our individual decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis and we will choose the option greater for society... Or greatest for ourselves?

If you are buying something that you know exploit natural resources or people are you willing to pay for that or would you rather those people were exploited and you got your goods cheaper?

should the government regulate the environment to prevent damage... Or should the government allow free market and individuals making good decisions to save the environment by the way the current trend is that market-based Solutions will work over regulation?

Thoughts?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

I dunno. What do you think?

seen as only right leaning governments have used neoliberalism for economy, surely it should be called neoconservative?

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
I dunno. What do you think?

It's ridiculous to expect the Capital Market of globalization whose entire Mission seems to be destroyed nature to have the tools to save it.

if nature cannot put a price tag on itself, it will not earn its way to save its own existence.

World governments count on agreements instead of Regulation to limit emissions and sustainability limit.......... nature will lose

a reply to: GoShredAK

If we f the earth up enough... Life will go on but more than likely without humans

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
seen as only right leaning governments have used neoliberalism for economy, surely it should be called neoconservative?

.

that would be true if the history of neoliberalism wasn't based in colonialism and the overwhelming reach of government.

At the time the whole concept was considered liberal and now the name has stuck even though nowadays it is definitely a more conservative way of thinking.

They need to eliminate the entire concept of Neoliberalism because it's confusing and hardly any liberals believe it. What neoliberalism really means is the idea of pushing capitalism on other countries in the belief that it will make life better for the people there. The reality is that pushing capitalism on non-capitalistic societies is almost always a disaster. Usually a few people adopt it and do well by screwing everyone else over. I remember reading in college about how some tribe in latin america used to live sustainably off nature and then western capitalists started paying a few of them to capture and sell the sea turtles they used to rely on. A few people made some money but life was ruined for everyone else in the tribe and nature was tarnished.

Only people like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton could fit under this label, and like I said, it's too confusing for most people to be useful.

a reply to: GoShredAK
People forget, Republicans used to be fiscally conservative. After Reagan, they have become fiscally liberal and socially racist. Fascism is the only thing they wish to conserve. The rest is cursory.

You take all the trees,
Put 'em in a tree museum.
Charge all the people
A dollar and half just to see 'um.


Like that, you mean?
(Gotta love that rhyme)