Comments on: Alright, I’m gonna try to get this ball rolling. …

By: Paige Hendricks

Paige Hendricks — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:48:56 +0000

1m4xr61dgkl32kf2

By: Erin

Erin — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:30:52 +0000

Basically much of our economic system and, well our society, is based on “must have it now”. Industrialism bred capitalism, which bred consumerism. It has nothing to do with physics. We are consumed by consumerism, and I don’t think there is any way out. This country will destroy itself as all empires do. They try to create a global empire but only end up self-destructing. Freegans have a nice little naive idea that they can change the world by dumpster diving. If only life were that simple. I mean, can you see Paris Hilton as a future Freegan? They are only a small speck in the microcosm clusterfuck that is our country and are doomed to the same fate.

By: The_Actual_Greyson_Ruback

The_Actual_Greyson_Ruback — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:16:46 +0000

I’m not going to spend too much space defending the “pollute now, so our kids will be forced to come up with the technology to fix it later” strawman or the “nothing but an excuse to avoid responsibility” comment. I would hope both of those authors would reread my first comments, have more respect for me than to think that that is my perspective of these issues, and read more critically before responding. I was simply replying to Josh’s “system is doomed to failure,” assertion, and additionally I will point out that the entire macroprogression of human history has been towards increased development and spreading economic prosperity.

The real locus of my argument was at the head of my comments. What I find is that it is not faults of the system that threaten to destroy us, but faults in our selves.

(And thus I return to Sam’s harangues) I am not suggesting that since it is impossible to create an unquestionable algorithm for computing the consequences of human action, we shouldn’t try. I am suggesting that it is inherently unjust and restrictive of freedom to utilize a planned economy. What I was responding to was Josh’s “the fact that true costs are not calculated may be reason to label the current economic system as ‘failing’ or not necessarily as ‘good’ as it could be.” I cannot support that claim (Josh’s “may” in there suggests he might agree.) Ultimate calculation of the consequence of human action is capable only with an omniscient godlike power, which would scare the bejesus out of me were it ever created by humanity. Again it is not that we have failed methods of calculation (that is indeed a cop-out) it is that we have in essence, corrupted our very souls, and disconnected our selves from our environment.

As for Sam’s “problem… with our economic system is that there are no means for including the benefits of conservation.” This is a total misconception of even our current system (which I should stress is no where near the truly free market which I promote.) The beauty of a market economy is the ability for every consumer to promote the kinds of commerce that they feel provide the best use of their dollars. If Sam feels that a company is not living up to Sam’s conservation standards then you can withhold your patronage. If you feel so strongly you can even organize a boycott, or start a rival company and out-compete them by attracting the burgeoning eco-friendly consumer market. The technology of today’s digital age promises to provide consumer knowledge and coordination to a degree never before imagineable. Corporations, due to their organizational capacities, have been the first to catch on to utilizing today’s technology, but as long as the internet and other future technologies are not regulated the ultimate benefits will be rept by consumers.

On to Rudo’s worries of an “unregulated state of nature” (though ideally given an original position, I would argue for such, but from a pragmatic standpoint given our present state of society, we could not attain it, so here I would prefer the label “free market system” or if you must “pie in the sky free market hocum” for what I am supporting.) In a free market the problem makers you worry about are dealt with in a multitude of ways. Most commonly being through consumer action, as I just responded to Sam’s lament for eco-friendly corporations. But also through legal action, if Josh’s slaughterhouse knowingly poisons a waterway which results in the killing of a civilian then that in my book is a criminal act and should be treated as such. If corporate negligence, and no individual person is found ultimately responsible (as if “the corporation just gone off and done up something bad”) then consumer action should be sufficient to prevent any further action, as well as warn all other firms against any future violations. Again with the consumer coordination possibilities of the future this could be tantamount to blacklisting (and does inspire worry of mob rule.)

Lastly, Josh, ultimately, I think we do agree on a lot, but I think you’ve put the Libertarian in the wrong order of your label. I can understand a Socialist Libertarian, but I cannot imagine a logically consistent philosophy that I would call Libertarian Socialism (that wouldn’t include an assumption of human beings as inherently incapable of self-governance. Is this the case?)

I also would like to send some dap out to my good friend Andrew. Thanks again for providing the impetus for compelling fireside discussion… if I get close enough to my screen I can feel the warmth of the fire at Barry’s library… and I can still feel the chill of Emerald’s scowl. And thanks as well to my interlocutors, keep it coming.

Oh another book that this conversation has reminded me of is Benjamin Barber’s latest “Consumed.” I haven’t read it and from what I have read about it I think he errs in much the same way you have, but I will mention him, because I respect the guy, and I am sure the book contains a load of good observations.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:36:35 +0000

Maybe this guys book can shed light on a few things discussed in this thread.

http://www.alternet.org/story/54920/

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:52:42 +0000

I’ve been plotting a return of these for quite sometime. How else I am going to learn from such wonderful people with such crazy ideas… Welcome back to Fire Side Chats 2.0

Feel free to register an account and post your own musing

Regards

By: Samantha

Samantha — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:22:07 +0000

Rudo, you’re my favorite.

I loved that you referenced the “Tragedy of the Commons” and used the phrase “old school Hobbes.”

Where’ve you been all my life?

By: Rudo

Rudo — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:21:04 +0000

P.S.S.

I just realize I mixed up my their, there, they’re’s in that last sentence, and am now covered in filthy shame.

By: Rudo

Rudo — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:17:06 +0000

While I like the naive idealism of freeganism, (and appreciate the attempt) my thoughts basically echo everyone else’s. Freeganism to me, is dumpster diving with an ample helping of self-righteousness. Agreed, corporations pollute, exploit, and generally make all of us accomplices in some pretty bad things, but raiding an NYU dumpster does nothing to address that, unless you include self-satisfaction as a tangible benefit (which these people seem to). Furthermore, I don’t even believe that they are extricating themselves from corporations/globalization, since their philosophy essentially amounts to: don’t buy corporate, but if you find an iPod in the trash then hey! Ok, you didn’t pay for it, so that’s $200 less in Steve Job’s pocket, and one less item ending up in a landfill, but you are still enjoying the fruits of a capitalist society you claim to abhor. Basically, as I said before, I like the idea of freeganism, it’s cute in a ‘Summer of Love’ kind of way,(and as the NYT has told us repeatedly, that’s totally hot right now) but I really wish they would shed the annoying veneer of pseudo-philosophy because it ultimately creates conflicts which they cannot resolve and still remain philosophically consistent. (While the issue of purity is really nit-picky, they opened the door to this one themselves by being so sanctimonious in the first place).
Second, to engage some of the comments made here, like Sam, I too am alarmed at a “pollute now, so our kids will be forced to come up with the technology to fix it later” attitude. Obviously, this amounts to a fundamental ideological difference between Greyson and me (in that I don’t trust the free market as much as he does) but I really don’t see the point of continuing to the feed the system and assuming that we can kill it whenever we choose (or need) to. Resources are finite, and unfortunately, some damage is irreversible. I understand that Greyson is working from the “necessity is the mother of all invention” angle, but I’d rather not gamble with things which are necessary for the sustanance of a (good) human life. Also I think the problem with your infinite possibilties argument (in addition to what Sam stated) is that the environment is a public utility, so unfortunately we all cannot be forced to be at the mercy of you and your postmodern self while you explore every possibility. Basically, my argument here amounts to what Garrett Hardin wrote in “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Secondly, old school Hobbes presents a problem with your “critical mass of completely uncoordinated individual action” model (I have taken it upon myself to name your ideas). Since any one individual’s (including corporations, since they supposedly count as people too) actions can impact the environment, what do we do about those who in this unregulated “state of nature” (because of ignorance, or maliciousness)
continue to do things which adversely impact everyone else? Or should we wait for them to finally “feel connected” to the Earth? As draconian as it might sound, there needs to be someone regulating the system, and the problem is right now, corporations are essentially self-policing.

That was my little rant. In the end, my thoughts regarding freeganism boil down to this: I have friends who take things from dumpsters too, and they can explain their positions in a much more satisfactory and less grating manner. They like free (relatively good) stuff. They don’t imagine that they’re somehow giving it to the Man, (even though they might be in a micro-micro-micro-economic sort of way) because that’s what they’re getting Political Science and Philosophy degrees for.

P.S. I’m glad that Andrew has found a way to con us back into having “fireside chats,” although I must say that these are much more enjoyable.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:19:27 +0000

Josh, is this what your 2am rant/transcendent experience was all about? I think it’s great. To me, though, the pragmatism vs. personal purity conflict is basically a non-issue. It seems like the difference between Kant’s deontology and Bentham’s utilitarianism and, for me, the answer has always been utilitarianism. I mean, who has really done more for the environment: the Sierra Club, which works within the system, or the Luddites, who work from without?

And Greyson, you mentioned that the human mind cannot envision the infinite effects of every action…maybe so, but we can envision a great deal of the effects, and a statement like yours seems to me like nothing but an excuse to avoid responsibility. “What? I did that? Well, I couldn’t possibly have forseen it happening! It is only one of many possibilities!” No. For the most part, we know what we’re doing.

Further, I think all this talk about physics and its relation to natural resources is misguided. Yeah, the law of conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change its forms. But that’s Newtonian physics. Quantum phyics (if I remember correctly) says that energy and matter are essentially the same thing. Thus, as long as we have matter, we have potential energy. None of that really matters though. Even if there were unlimited resources (because there might be), I still have a problem with this blind faith in technological innovation. It gives us an excuse to consume as much as we want because Technology and Innovation will save us. The problem I have with our economic system is that there are no means for including the benefits of conservation (Josh’s “true costs” versus calculated costs). Shouldn’t we preserve or conserve what we have simply for the sake of it?

I don’t know. I have to get back to work too.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:26:07 +0000

Structural hurdles require structural solutions. Individual virtuousness is not enough. No amount of personal knowledge allows an individual to effectively act according to his/her convictions if other actors are more effectively organized and in fact specifically organize against particular value choices. In an increasingly globalized and organized society, the power of the individual is greatly decreased. The entrepreneur is dead. At least the individual entrepreneur. Let me try to explain.

Humans make a rational decision to work together because cooperation is what is best for the individual’s interests. Certain rights are lost by joining and maintaining society, but other rights are secured. We see this happening in capital and economics. Corporations (groups of individuals) exist because they are better equipeped, more stable and more effective than individual action. These corporations, however, also stiffle innovation by maintaining the status quo (some worse than others). See the “big three” auto companies in the US and Airbus in Europe for some good examples.

The key to living your life according to your values is to engage the system and make it reflect your values. Firestone, Ford and company bought most of the light rail systems (trolleys & such) then dismantled them so people were “forced” to drive (that is driving was the only rational choice). Now you have oil companies literally holding many green technologies and resisting change. An individual’s actions, and the accumulated benefits of these individual actions, will not change this. Only organized action has the chance of success because it can be directed to where it is effective.

Individual autonomy is best protected in an organized group. Freegans and their like should engage the capitalist system in order to maintain their personal autonomy. Community development corporations, employee-owned companies and joint public-private ventures are the way to go. An economy based on individualism is no more. The choice now is between being subservient to non-national corporations or bringing democracy (and individual liberty/dignity/responsibility) to the economic structure.

Entreprenurial America needs to be reborn with an ideology cognizant in the 21st century, not one born in the beginnings of industrialization. I think this is some mighty fertile ground.

–Fortunately…I now GET to go to WORK.