[Loki]

Nice link.

Huckabee and McCain look like the least awful of the Republicans.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Huckabee', 'C')alls for getting 15% of U.S. electricity from "alternative" energy sources by 2020, which would include "clean coal" and nuclear power in addition to renewables.

[retiredguy]

So, Billig, you agree with Matt, then?

He IS right, you know.

Who or what group are you proposing we set up to protect the Commons? How would decisions about its use be made? In whose best interest?

These are issues you really need to consider when you say that there is a better way to manage the Commons than through market forces.

Placing a monetary value on the Commons, IMHO, is essential to saving what is left. Having said that, there is still no guarantee that mankind won't make the planet unfit for human habitation.

Of all the candidates running, Ron Paul makes the most sense simply because he isn't making promises that none of the others who are running can keep.

[kadoomsoon]

It does not matter who wins.

[billg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'S')o, Billig, you agree with Matt, then?

He IS right, you know.

Who or what group are you proposing we set up to protect the Commons? How would decisions about its use be made? In whose best interest?

These are issues you really need to consider when you say that there is a better way to manage the Commons than through market forces.

Placing a monetary value on the Commons, IMHO, is essential to saving what is left. Having said that, there is still no guarantee that mankind won't make the planet unfit for human habitation.

Of all the candidates running, Ron Paul makes the most sense simply because he isn't making promises that none of the others who are running can keep.

[billg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', ' ')

Placing a monetary value on the Commons, IMHO, is essential to saving what is left. Having said that, there is still no guarantee that mankind won't make the planet unfit for human habitation.

[retiredguy]

Did I say that market forces would save us? All I'm saying is that I don't see another viable alternative.

You seem to think we will be saved by humans who are "self-responsible." Well, I too, believe in self-responsibility. So does Ron Paul.

However, if you think collective "self-responsibility" will preserve the Commons while the population is in overshoot in a time of diminishing resources, you are deluded.

I'll continue to place my stock in individual and small-group preparedness while you wait around for Dennis, Miit or Hillary to save you.

[billg]

retiredguy wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, if you think collective "self-responsibility" will preserve the Commons while the population is in overshoot in a time of diminishing resources, you are deluded.

[retiredguy]

I live in the same warped world as you. Except that I have no delusions.

I never said market forces would necessarily save the Commons. The only other hope is some catastrophic depopulating event that would reduce the human numbers on this planet back to a sustainable level.

Unlike you, I have no faith that government institutions can save the Commons in an era of diminishing resources. Quite the opposite will happen when the resource situation becomes critical and the electorate demands action.

[billg]

I only believe in self-responsible humans who can guide responsible government action...not government institutions by themselves...

As maybe only 1% of the human population feels any aching responsibility towards preserving carrying capacity, I'm fairly confident that no effective government action will ever occur.

Government has a bad rap not because it is intrinsically evil but because it is guided by selfish individuals at the top and the bottom.

[billg]

retiredguy wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') never said market forces would necessarily save the Commons. The only other hope is some catastrophic depopulating event that would reduce the human numbers on this planet back to a sustainable level.

[retiredguy]

I agree with you.

I've spent the last 30 years trying to reduce my carbon footprint. I garden organically and intensely, use two sets of air collectors that are 25 years old to provide supplemental heat and get my remaining heat from wood.

As soon as thin-film PV is available, I will install some arrays.

All my carbon savings simply allows some SUV-driving jackass to live in his McMansion on the outskirts of town.

Your are right in saying that governments are necessarily evil. But when the masses decide that their need for gasoline trumps some caribou in Alaska, how is the government going to respond?

My hope is that things unwind quickly. Perhaps that will preserve a good chunk of the Commons.

[careinke]

Privately owned land is usually better cared for and managed than "common lands." With public lands, no one feels as if they are a stakeholder, therefore no one feels they are responsible for taking care of it.

Go take a walk on your local public beach, and look at the trash. Now go look at a private beach and notice how it is better cared for.

Most of the Superfund Cleanup sites are on Government Lands, wonder why?

The most productive forests are managed and owned by the timber companies and private land owners.

I could go on.... But bottom line, I would feel a lot more comfortable during the upcoming collapse having a president who is standing by my liberty and freedom.

Why people believe that people are evil, but big government (run by people) is beneficial is beyond me. I'll take a community government over a national or world government any day. At least I have a chance of influencing a local government.

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution)

[billg]

Cliff,

it's too bad that all our forests aren't managed by lumber companies...who cares about the old growth forests anyway!

it's too bad we don't have more billionaires living off of their compounded interest. the planet be would such a beautiful place.

come on!

for every rich person living it up somewhere on some gorgeous piece of property, there are thousand other people on the planet suckin in the toxic wastes that are necessary to support that person's lifestyle.

these people are heavily invested in companies that lay waste to everywhere but their little NIMBY hideouts.

you just don't see the connections do you?

by the way, your man Ron Paul voted to slash funding for Amtrak in 2006. maybe you don't like national governments but they do serve some valid functions.

[billg]

careinke wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost of the Superfund Cleanup sites are on Government Lands, wonder why?

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('billg', 'T')here is nothing about Ron Paul that promotes environmentalism.

[careinke]

There is NOTHING that any government can do to solve the worlds energy/population problem. We are in overshoot. We will extract less and less ancient sunlight. We have, or are close to reaching an environmental tipping point, and the government takes my money to subsidize the oil interests..

Some will survive, a lot will die.

Do you want to rely on the government to be your parents? Or do you want to take responsibility for your own life?

Personally, I think me and my family will have a better chance to survive if the government is not stealing my wealth to support someone else at my expense.

Look at who is supporting (paying for) the other politicians campaigns for president, then look at who is supporting Dr. Pauls.

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution)

P.S. Amtrack is a perfect example of why governemt should not try and run a business.

[billg]

Cliff,
Here is a pretty good discussion of all the problems associated withAmtrakat the American Prospect. I think it suffers more from government neglect than government mismanagement.

I guess you are also suggesting that the government should not maintain our road and highway infrastructure? Better to leave that to the private sector?

Privitization of water...support that too?

[retiredguy]

Maybe privatization of our roads should be tried.

If the developers had to pay for new roads in new subdivisions and the residents there had to pay for their maintenance, perhaps it would encourage more in-building in established cities, towns and villages and less suburban development.

With the steep increase in the cost of asphalt and fuel, road maintenance is strapping a lot of municipal governments in my area.

Privatization of water is already happening in a number of large American cities.

[retiredguy]

Speaking of the privatization of water. Alfalfa and cotton is currently being grown in the desert south of Phoenix because the growers get government water from CAP so cheaply. If they had to pay market rates (private ownership) for that water, it would cost fifty times as much and those crops would be grown where they should be grown.

How about the 54 cent/gallon subsidy for ethanol? Another great government program.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'M')aybe privatization of our roads should be tried.

If the developers had to pay for new roads in new subdivisions and the residents there had to pay for their maintenance, perhaps it would encourage more in-building in established cities, towns and villages and less suburban development.

With the steep increase in the cost of asphalt and fuel, road maintenance is strapping a lot of municipal governments in my area.

Privatization of water is already happening in a number of large American cities.