Exactly, I really hope a coalition can form (around the world) between all opposed to this kind of policy (be they capitalists, anti-capitalists etc.). These corrupt distortions will kill the planet and harm the west.
I think we have a moral duty to have a strong and confident western world (with or without the US) to act united against countries like russia and china.
The problem, I think, with this is that while both capitalists and anti-capitalists oppose this policy, they view it differently. For capitalists, this is a corruption of the ideal market system. Consequently, it makes sense to try and advocate for a correct to those policies. For anti-capitalists, this is the nature of the market system. Consequently, it makes no sense to advocate for correcting these policies, the whole system needs to be uprooted.
The problem is that when you create an international coalition powerful enough to control capital and to go against its logic, you've built a communism. Under that system, the common ideological space (what yuval noah harai calls "the greatest story ever told") comes under an active, deliberate intervention by a political will, and there's just no way the people in power are ever going to share in the kind of control they enjoy now.
Why? If I organise enough people to vote to end subsidies like those featured in the article, I have created communism?
What is practised in the west isn't even along a socialism-capitalism axis, it's just corruption. That is a problem in any society held together by words.
No, you build communism when you transfer the asset to the people or the state.
The supremacy of the sovereign over commerce has nothing at all to do with communism. Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce, which by modern standards can be applied to almost all commercial activity. US policy tuned this down considerably from the 1960s onward.
You’ll find that if you actually read about what some of the illustrious founders thought about regulatory authority, the average modern conservative in particular would be clutching their pearls. Hell, George Washington mustered a small army to collect (ie seize) excise taxes from hillbillies in Western Pennsylvania!
>Under US law, the Congress has nearly unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce
As intended: Jefferson chose the term "pursuit of happiness" rather than "estate" (unlike Locke's earlier formulation) in the declaration of independence because all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself.
all of the founding fathers viewed commerce and property as a function or construct of society, rather than a natural right in itself
Your interpretation goes against the Founder's stated beliefs.
The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of
every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management.
~ Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property,
he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
...
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well
that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which
the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government,
that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every
man, whatever is his own.
~ James Madison, Essay on Property
Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property
than of the persons of individuals.
~ James Madison, Federalist 54
the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate ... is
the first object of government
~ James Madison, Federalist 10
And, if we read Locke's own words:
The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty.
As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a
careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care
of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the
necessary foundation of our liberty.
~ https://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/
> Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.
Obviously there is nuance there as Madison and his constituents depended on the power of the state to deprive their laborers of their natural rights.
Madison in particular struggled with the notion of human chattel and the paradox of standing for liberty and slavery. He banished import of slaves and advocated for profound government intervention on the market — a federal buyout of slaves.
This is not interpretation - it is not ambiguous why the Committee of Five purposefully chose to downplay the function of government to specifically protect property rights - again, in explicit contrast to Locke's formulation of natural rights bearing "Life, Liberty, and Estate" - here's some further reading of their thoughts (including Madison's) that contradict this decontextualized misinformation:
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention." -Franklin
"While it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from Nature at all … it is considered by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land … Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." -Jefferson
Even originally, Locke thought of the right to property more explicitly in terms of acquiring property more along the lines of the "pursuit of happiness" as evidenced by his Second Treatise, and Madison spoke in terms of that document as well:
Your quote from Locke supports their explicit and his implicit viewpoint here, and your other quotes are out of context of their primary sources which end up supporting their broader view of "Property" == "Pursuit of happiness".
Yes! There is even further context to break down about what we originally formulated our natural rights to address; it's something I think all American's interested in their rights should read into.
That was long before capitalism had corroded and hollowed out all of our public institutions. I'm referring to what some people mean when they say that we changed from being a society that has markets to being a market society. If you think that it's just a matter of Congress wielding unlimited power because it says so in a document, my question is how are you going to build the kind of political coalition to make that into a reality? In a society as hollowed out as ours, our entire conception of what the role of politics is will have to change.
Look at early 20th century American politics. We went from total domination by the trusts to the progressive era, to the disturbing Wilson (pre and postwar) to the new deal period.
IMO, we are witnesses to a historical tipping point that will usher in the next era.
Each of those moves to the left were made possible only by a very angry and mobilized coalition of communists, socialists, trade unionists, and other desperate working-class people. Nothing like that exists currently, and also we never had to contend with a hostile digital media empire. Just look at what happened with Trump's impeachment, compared to what would've happened at any other point in history.
Corrupt oligarchs are also capable of learning from the past.
That’s not how commodity markets, like for oil and gas work. If the entire industry saves $280 billion, they don’t declare a giant dividend. The industry is extremely competitive, and the price of gas is very sensitive to changes in the cost of extracting the gas. If you forced operators to say pay the costs of capping wells up front, those costs would almost entirely be passed onto the consumer.
Since almost everyone uses gas, people are just going to be paying money they saved earlier through cheaper gas. More generally, the “but profits!” view of the world isn’t very useful when applied to highly competitive industries. Yeah, Purdue makes a lot of money in absolute terms, but it makes cents on each chicken. Consumers are the ones that mainly benefit from factory farming in the form of lower prices. Focusing on “profits” overlooks the real economic issue: people like cheap gas, chicken, and other commodities.
Down voters: There is nothing here to “disagree” with. The fact that gas prices closely track costs of extracting oil is not only Econ 101, its well established empirically.
So let it be more expensive by internalizing the costs. Society will adjust. After all, Americans use an astounding amount of energy. I get your point on the competitiveness of the industry, but let's be real, a lot of people are, indeed, making money and socializing the costs.
I’m not making a normative point about what we should do. I’m describing what’s happening. Econ 101 also tells us that failing to internalize an externality will result in more than an efficient amount of that thing being used, because it’s artificially cheap. So if I were to comment on it, I would support internalizing that cost up front.
Rhetoric about “but profits!” is good for creating narratives and selling newspapers. But it’s not good at actually helping fix the problem. The oil & gas industry has a 5.6% profit margin. Profit is not a relevant discussion when it comes to the oil and gas industry.
Also, insofar as there aren’t good alternatives to oil, oil companies might make even more money if you force them to pay the cost of capping wells ip front. That increases their up-front investment which means they’ll demand a higher return on the backend. The problem is that presidential approval ratings closely track gas prices at the pump, and politicians won’t do anything that will cause gas prices to go up.
This is entirely a decision for consumers to make. Do we want to pay more at the pump know, or pay more in the cost of capping wells 20 years from now?
I'd rather pay for my gas when I'm paying for my gas, as opposed to regardless of my consumption of gas. That way there's incentives to reduce consumption
The failure to account for externalities and to couple them to their causes was probably the fundamental failure of communism.
While what you say is mathematically correct, it fails to align the cost with those who received maximal benefit, instead blindly socializing the cost.
Frankly I’d prefer tha the west avoided the mistakes of the Soviet Union and instead assigned liability appropriately.
In our actual government, though, their lobbiests would kill that immediately.