The current capitalist system allows theft of natural resources, (fresh air and water, fish in the sea, biodiversity, etc.), and generally those with capital are the ones most actively involved in exploiting this system of legalized theft. I call this taking of natural resources 'theft' because I do not consider the air and water and biodiversity to be owned by those who are making the decisions that result in the degredation and loss of these resources, but rather, (if it can be said that the air and water and biodiversity are 'owned' by anyone), they are owned by everyone. But as of yet, the economic system does not recognize this fact. I think legally natural resources for all practical purposes are owned by those who have successfully maneuvered themselves into positions where they can effectively grab the resources.If those who use the air and water as a natural service that takes away their unwanted materials, their waste products, their pollutants; and if those who take fish from the sea, and destroy forests, were made to pay a fee in some proportion to how much damage they do to these natural resources that belong to all, then they would have an incentive to reduce the amount of damage they do to the earth.
If all the people of the earth received payments that were equal to their share of the fees collected for use of natural resources, and if they had the first and last word on what levels of pollution and what rates of taking of other resources they would consider acceptible, then we would have a system of ownership and management of natural resources, a means of production, in the hands of the people.
If we preserve that part of the present system that allows free movement of capital, and introduce this scheme for managing the use of natural resources within sustainable limits through attaching fees, with fee proceeds distributed to, (and fee levels set by), all the people, we would have a synthesis of capitalism and communism, with the best of both worlds, and a real prospect that natural resources and biodiversity can be preserved for future generations.
And, especially for the readers of these debates: Fees on resource use would make meat cost a lot more. Fees on keeping animals in oppressive conditions and in captivity, (to discourage these activities), would make it cost more still.
If we consider that keeping animals in captivity is a use of force, and taking resources and putting pollution is forcing others to do with less, and forcing them to accept what the polluter does not want, then we can achieve all this while adhering to the libertarian principle of no first use of force by government.
John Champagne
Gaia Brain and the History of Life
A Capitalism - Communism Synthesis
Imagine it is a free country...
Ask ANYONE to be President... Who would you choose?
Walter Cronkite would do it if we ask... (I borrowed this question from him, (and changed it a bit).
None.
