Well that's kind of the point, get the companies that pollute with impunity out of our communities. Things like oil fields and refineries take up so much acreage for the amount of people they employ, and many are still situated adjacent to homes.
Why? Neither oil nor agriculture are large sectors as other parts of the californian economy, both contribute like 7% combined to the state GDP (1,2). Oil can be bought from elsewhere, it doesn't need to be extracted from the middle of residential neighborhoods in LA county like its the 1890s still.
Sure, but it's not like fossil fuels are the only way to power transport, although they're certainly the easiest way at present thanks to all the existing plant & infrastructure.
I have no issue with domestic production, just when its done in places that inevitably lead to the children getting significantly elevated rates of disease due to proximity and poor land use decisions.
If they're full, it's a good thing. If we could get just 50,000 people to leave CA and go to a few swing states like PA and OH, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it.
What is wrong with the Republican Party? Texas produces more renewable energy than California. The redneck attitude of do whatever you want on your land, and anti-regulation attitudes are far more important than political grandstanding.
Texas also produces more non-renewable energy than California.
Texas gets 8.5% of its energy from renewables. California gets 16.5%. (The state with the most from renewables is Washington with 50%, followed by South Dakota at 43%, and Maine at 38%).
For electricity the US average is 39% from renewables. Texas is a little below average at 33%. California is at 49%. (Highest is Vermont at 99+%, South Dakota at 83%, and Washington at 82%).
In terms of CO2 Mt/TWh the US average is 402. Texas is 428. California is 229. (The best are Vermont at 5, Washington at 100, Oregon at 143, and South Dakota at 145).
One thing that is wrong with them is that they don't believe they lost in 2020. They need to be beaten decisively the way that the Democrats got beat in 1984 to be cured of that.
The first question itself has a lot of answers, but sticking to the topic of climate/renewables it would be silly to pretend that the republican party actually cares about the environment (especially if it isn't financially beneficial to them in the short term).
If anyone’s interested, I have a model developed that shows exactly which counties people would have to populate, which ones to ignore completely, while maintaining balance in the democrat areas
for me, this is a non-partisan observation
population wise, the republican party simply does not have the numbers to do the same. there are very few deeply red or blue counties, but uniquely the deeply red ones are sparsely populated. so most red counties can be swung with a tiny population change to push over 50%, or can be swung by a tiny population moving there.
I made the model because I was surprised some super pac or some other well funded interest group didn't already do a relocation program like this
I’ll contract it out to super pacs and campaigns, and those interested. I did it in 2022 and it was too late for the midterms but its time now for the national elections
There is actually a great Youtube channel on this very topic! Colorado used to be a very nice place. When I visited in 2008 it was idyllic. Then it flipped blue and with it came all the blue problems. Homelessness, Drug addiction, depression, high cost of living, and a general sense of malaise. When I visited Colorado again in 2021 it was unrecognizable.
I think it is very interesting to wonder how effective this would be
there are many circumstances where it becomes more apparent that a party isnt representing interests relevant to that area once someone is there, especially since some places would require residency for 7-8 months before being eligible
to vote there
I don't care about the outcome, I navigate a lot of countries, but I’ll sell things to partisans, they’re very emotional and deeply invested in the outcome
Don't people tend to change party when they move from cities to rural, and vice versa? So we could also end the Democratic party as we know it by convincing more people to move out of cities.
Which comes first? People start to have ideas that the city living isn't working out for them because they don't like X, Y, and Z and once they move, they realize that means they are now more red than a decade ago?
Or blue-no-matter-who Democrats move to a rural area and then change their beliefs?
I suspect it's more the former than the latter (you move after your beliefs change more than before).
As someone who grew up rural and has spent most of his adult life in cities, IME people change when going rural → urban, but don’t going the other way. Those who “change” after going rural tend to be those who previously straddled the fence in the city.
What do you think will happen when the Socialists will take over? Do you think they will look kindly on your various "freedoms" to be "different"? Check out Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China. Don't think for a second that the San Francisco will stay the same under the totalitarian Socialist rule. The "intellectuals" and "different" people will be the first to go. Always happens, according to history, because "think different" people tend to question the authority and it's a big no-no under the Socialism. Oh, and you will get a free (somewhat crappy) healthcare.
Ok, I'll nibble here -- I would describe myself as a Socialist, and I'm happy to have an open conversation about the question you've asked. (Unless your question was rhetorical and not intended to be a discussion.)
Can I start by asking you what type of Socialism you are most concerned with?
Socialism is a very broad term with different meanings to different people.
For example, I am a Socialist who is against autocratic rule. I believe the Soviet style communists (the countries you mentioned) weren't much better than other contemporary autocrats and in many cases were far worse. There are other Socialists who believe that any hierarchy is bad and should be removed. It's a very diverse community of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and a wide variety of beliefs, only a small minority of which believe in totalitarian or single party rule.
I support, for example, democratic workers councils, federation of guilds, and other such elective methods of leadership. I just happen to also believe that labor entitles you to a share of the profit of that labor, rather than investment wealth. I'd love to live in a world where every company was a workers-coop, and we reduced our profit motive and increased our work comfort motive.
I don't doubt that you are against the autocratic rule. The point is that you won't have a choice. There will be another gentleman (they always appear), who will decide that he should be in charge and will take power, by force. You will complain, he will put you in jail or worse. At that point, you will remember that you had to dismantle democratic checks & balances (how else will you convince people to part with their property!), but it will be too late for you and everybody else.
> how else will you convince people to part with their property!
This is a great question, and a common misunderstanding! First, in case there's some confusion by other readers, I'm against private property controlling and directing labor, but not personal property -- that is to say that no one is going to take your xbox or Ford truck away from you. Those things are personal property, they are yours and should stay yours.
I do think, however, that private property -- the money used to exert control over others ("I'm the chief investor in X, so you must do what I say") -- should be replaced with cooperative ownership. Either through labor ownership, labor-customer ownership, or the state, as appropriate.
But, how do we achieve that? Yes, you could seize all the assets via force. But that's bad. Instead, you structure your incentives so it happens over time. Decrease the costs of running a co-op, reducing taxes or fees for businesses that are collectively owned. Increase taxes and fees proportional to the differences between the compensation of the highest paid individual and the lowest. Increase estate taxes, so no one immediately loses their money, but less capital passes down (obviously with gradients so as not to hurt most people). Expand property taxes to include other property at some nominal rate.
The other thing you could do is make it as easy to do the co-operative thing as it is to do the solo thing. Finding a lender to talk about cohousing is MUCH more difficult than finding one to talk about a mortgage. Finding a lawyer who can incorporate a co-op is much harder than finding out how to start an LLC. We would move significantly towards my ideals over time if the education and resources allocated were even close to parity.
It doesn't have to be a revolution and it doesn't have to be without the rule of law or anti-democratic.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this new account, it’s also feeding a troll. Anyone equating SF to Soviet Russia is not looking for reasoned argument.
There's a part of me that hopes that maybe, just maybe, there will be someone who listens and discusses and introspects a little. It's happened to me before, "Oh, all anarchists are kiddies" types who have never sat down and had a real conversation with an anarchist to understand what that term means. Every once in a blue moon someone listens and learns and says, "Well, I don't agree with you, but at least I understand you".
I'll keep extending that olive branch, quietly but assertively offering to discuss, answering questions. If it fails 99 times but succeeds once, that's one more person in the world who stops thinking in such rigid black and white about in-group vs out-group.
The problem with Socialism is the requirement for others to forcibly partake in it, otherwise it doesn't work. It's not just about forcing everyone to pay higher taxes, at its core it's about rewarding everyone equally, despite the fact some people choose to work more. The only way to stop this is to force everyone to work the same amount, which cannot be done in a humane way. This means inevitably, some people will always work harder than others, and if they're not rewarded by the market, they'll be rewarded by circumventing the state and being corrupt. This is what happens every single time it is tried. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> at its core it's about rewarding everyone equally, despite the fact some people choose to work more
I hear this frequently, but I do not believe it is axiomatic. I believe we should provide a sense of equal minimum reward, a baseline level of food, shelter, amenities that everyone gets access to. Even if they cannot work or choose to work the minimum amount.
Again, it's important to recall that "Socialism" includes everything from Soviets to Anarchists to Democratic Socialists and many (many) flavors in between.
But it's not fundamentally antithetical to Socialism to recognize the people who choose to work more. The rewards structure might look different, depending on what flavor of Socialism you prefer, but I would expect that someone who goes above and beyond also tends to attract rewards (whether those are luxuries, time, recognition, or other things).
Even my anarchist/socialist friends would recognize that many luxuries are limited -- we cannot all have infinite bottles of aged whiskey -- but if you put in the extra time to really help out at the distillery, or really devote a lot of time to making their barrels, it stands to reason you'd be recognized for that.
I also genuinely believe that when you remove the necessity of "I need to work an excess to ensure I can afford to support my family's basic needs", the desire to work more comes from a passion for the work or for securing 'nice to haves'. There's nothing saying a worker's co-op couldn't decide to, for instance, nominate 10% of their peers each month for extra rewards or something.
Someone could easily say the problem with capitalism is the requirement for others to forcibly partake in it. Like they send the police and army if you don't.
1. Those symptoms you describe seem more general to fascist/totalitarian governments than just socialist governments. Are you saying all socialism is equivalent to totalitarian governments?
2. Do you believe those symptoms are unique and in-masse to socialist governments?
3. Why do you add China to that list when it is widely considered by many diverse institutions to be state capitalist?
> Why do you add China to that list when it is widely considered by many diverse institutions to be state capitalist?
This is a very interesting point. The Chinese State itself (and presumably 1.5 billion Chinese people) consider China a Socialist Country. No doubts about it. They call their economy a Socialist Market Economy. You could think of it as capitalist underlying economic structure and total social control of the Socialist State above it. From social perspective it's still totalitarian, which is exactly what socialism is.
It seems to be working for China and, possibly, that's what the majority of the Chinese people want. I am certainly not in business of telling other countries how to live. My only point is that it's not freedom from the liberal democracy perspective.
> 3. Why do you add China to that list when it is widely considered by many diverse institutions to be state capitalist?
You mean China today? China today commits more than their fair share of human rights abuses, but the worst atrocities in the PRC were perpetrated in the past by staunch socialists, not those capitalist reformers who later introduced capitalist elements back into Chinese society. During the Cultural Revolution the Red Guard, a hard-line socialist paramilitary mostly comprised of students, were purging anything that vaguely resembled capitalism or tradition. They murdered millions of people for socialism.