We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
"Individualism" is the problem. It's the reason everyone has their own big house which they never go out of except to shop and two SUVs instead of a decent public transportation system and more social interaction.
Oh, I agree when you use "individualism" to describe self-serving notions. I need to clarify my use of the word. First of all, I should tell you that, from my observation, collectivists and individualists, for the most part, are all good people. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for the world—for mankind. They all want peace, prosperity, and justice. They want freedom. Sometime they disagree over what the tradeoff should be for freedom; but, still, they all want the good things for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about. Those two words have meaning, and they describe a chasm of morality that divides the entire Western world.
The collectivist sees government as the solver of problems. The individualist, by the way, is more skeptical. He tends to look at government as the creator of problems. If there is a really big problem, such as the environmental issue involving the whole planet, the collectivist is convinced that it cannot be solved except through the action of world government. The individualist, on the other hand, sees that if you sacrifice the individual for the group, you have made a huge mistake. You can’t have a forest except for the trees.
Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ drastically over what is the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities in this debate. Either Man’s rights are intrinsic to his being, or they are extrinsic; either he possesses them at birth or they are given to him afterward. In other words, they are either hardware or software. Individualists believe they are hardware. Collectivists believe they are software. The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article 4 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” The reason this is important is that, if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. When governments claim to derive their authority from any source other than the governed, it always leads to the destruction of liberty and tyranny.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth—not except as determined by law, but no law. What a difference there is between individualism and collectivism.
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people do make a distinction between Republics and Democracies. We have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution. However, if you read the documents of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of Democracy. They said in plain English that a Democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created what they called a Republic.
The bottom line is that the difference between a Democracy and a Republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism. We need bottom up democracy. We need small-scale economies, and small-scale technologies powered by renewable energy. We need smaller communities, structured to be self-sufficient, all tied together by efficient mass transit. We need gardens and parks in our cities instead of cars. We need social halls, not shopping malls. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 Posts: 162 Location: missouri
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:18 pm Post subject:
Jato said:
Quote:
The Libertarian Party best represents my interests. Smaller government and more personal freedoms. The LP would end the War and put an end to the United States Empire.
Jato, I would almost agree--there is much about the LP I like, but for this--their position on the environment. Although the environmental laws can be stupid sometimes, we have to have them. It's all about competition. If Company A spends the money to NOT pollute the environment, and Company B trashes at will, because it's cheaper that way, then which of them will pull a bigger profit? And you know who will pay for the clean up. I believe that's called "external costs". So, that's the big stickler for me on the LP.
And Monte, yes, oh yes, I will definitely be voting from now on. I've fallen off in recent years. And in locals too, because if you take care of the small stuff, well, you hope the good choices will filter upward. We've had a very corrupt sheriff in our county for the past couple of years because voter turnout was so poor. Now he's in jail for selling drugs! And people knew he was doing it.
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:17 pm Post subject: Vote Wasting
jato wrote:
The Libertarian Party best represents my interests. Smaller government and more personal freedoms. The LP would end the War and put an end to the United States Empire.
I understand I am "wasting" my vote.
How could you possibly be wasting your vote? Since when did casting a vote for the candidate you think is best qualified to represent you, become a poor option. That'd be like going to the races, and only being able to bet on the two most favoured horses in a 9 horse race.
I know you're taking the piss when you said you'd be 'wasting' your vote, but people other than yourself seem to forget that all parties come from something, usually something small. 80 years ago, the Labour parties in New Zealand and the UK would have been a 'waste of votes', and now they are the government in each country (and into their second term). When your only two 'main choices' are poor, you should vote for the third one, and encourage others to do the same. In the short term it can wake up the two parties from their smug ignorance of the people's wishes, and in the long term it can bring someone else to prominence.
If I was a Yank, I'd be voting for Nader in Nov. Not because he is the saviour, but because voting for Bush and Kerry would be like jabbing a needle in my eye. Always vote for the candidate you think is best.
MonteQuest, you don't understand what I'm talking about when I use the term "Individualism". It's not really related to your long post at all. I can't explain it in a post, if you've got some time on your hands read James Howard Kunstler's "The Geopraphy Of Nowhere". It's a real hoot and it describes the whole "individualist" way that the USA was settled, going all the way from the very beginning of the settlement of the "new world" to the modern concept of sururban sprawl.
MonteQuest, you don't understand what I'm talking about when I use the term "Individualism". It's not really related to your long post at all. I can't explain it in a post, if you've got some time on your hands read James Howard Kunstler's "The Geopraphy Of Nowhere". It's a real hoot and it describes the whole "individualist" way that the USA was settled, going all the way from the very beginning of the settlement of the "new world" to the modern concept of sururban sprawl.
Oh, Ok....sorry about that. I will check it out. Always looking to learn, thats why I'm here.
Thanks!
Monte _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
