bobsal u1553115 wrote:
Self regulation is not liberty. Self regulation is antithetical to liberty. Self regulation is an attempt to deny the state's offer of freedom as the limitation of liberty. Its a denial of self-hood.
Ok, finally you say something clear I can understand and work with.
So freedom is what we have fundamentally in a state of total nature, or a hypothetical one anyway in which there is no herd-control as there is with animals. So if you imagine a state of non-organization without any power exercised between individuals, where we can do whatever we choose; that is freedom . . . but the moment humans begin to exercise freedom in a natural state, we begin to affect each other and each others' property/resources, as well as common/public resources such as water sources, land, etc.
So imagine you live in a simple village of independent farmers, and there is a common water source, say a lake, where farmers dig irrigation canals to bring water from the lake to their farm plots. As long as the water level stays sufficient and not polluted and no one is harming each other, they all just respect each others' freedom to live and farm and use the common lake.
But as soon as some farmers begin expanding their land to feed more children they've had, or the lake begins drying up because they're using water too liberally, etc. then conflicts ensue and people start seeking to regulate each other and common resources. Thus power and authority becomes a way of limiting others' freedom to cause harm.
For this reason, there have always been kings/monarchies and governmental authority to regulate how people live so that they don't harm each other and/or common resources.
Some people, however, realized that individuals are capable of governing themselves just as well as they can be governed by external authority, just by behaving themselves in a way that doesn't provoke the need for regulation. In short, the idea is that if I behave myself and/or do my work adequately without being controlled/managed, then why do I need a manager to control me?
So liberty is the principle that we can rule ourselves independently instead of having external authority to lord over us.
I.e. we don't need a nanny because we can behave ourselves just fine on our own.
Now that is the ideal, but what happens in practice? Do we really behave ourselves well enough to be left alone to our own devices? There are a lot of social problems and future unsustainability, so the question is what is causing all those problems and how can they be solved, either by external governance or by self-regulation with our own liberty?
What I contend about external governance is that it's not working BECAUSE people exercise freedom in various ways to prevent it from doing so. Economic stimulus, for example, is used to pump up growth and job-creation and, supposedly, it is being done in a way that's supposed to achieve sustainability. It doesn't, however, because the economic standards of consumption, work, transportation, etc. are all unsustainable and none of those industries want to reduce their footprint because that is how they make money and create jobs. So while government pretends like it is solving sustainability/climate problems, it's really just stimulating investments in lots of different ideas that won't ever materialize into something that replaces the status quo because the status quo gets funded by the (failing) investments of industry-newcomers who hire people and create contracts with other firms that hire people, all in an ostensible effort to create green business and renewable energy, etc. but when that money is flowing, people are using it to go on living according to the old standards, driving and flying and living in big air-conditioned houses and going around to big air-conditioned stores and attractions, offices, etc.
So the government just isn't working to fix the climate/sustainability, because all it really does is invest in more organizations and jobs that pay people at levels that fund all the industrial-consumerism that is bad for the climate/sustainability. If everyone would make the needed sacrifices in their personal choices of how to live, then you would start to see sustainability emerge; but they don't take the liberty to that; instead they go on living the way they believe they're supposed to to live a 'normal life,' work a full-time job that they drive to, where they wear long-pants and long-sleeved shirts that require air-conditioning to keep them cool, then they drive out to suburban subdivisions with lots of big multilane roads and shopping centers and offices between them and their houses competing for business, and all that developed land adds up to massive deforestation and ecocide, yet people don't even notice it because it has been so long since it was forest, they only pay attention to new development that is encroaching into currently-forested areas, and not realizing they have to change the way they live in already-developed areas so the natural ecology can be restored, pavement reduced, tree canopy and undergrowth restored, all the while finding new ways to live and build infrastructure that fits within a sustainability paradigm.
Democrats try to use government investment and regulation to pursue the sustainability paradigm, but it doesn't work because the growth-and-jobs emphasis keeps maintaining wage levels that fund the consumer behavior and business behavior that maintain and protect the status quo.
Plus Democrats are obsessed with 'closing the gap' between the middle-class and the rich, which produces a defensiveness among people who have anything to lose, and that provokes them into working that much harder to keep the economy generating more wealth for them, which the Democrats keep trying to force them to re-invest in more higher-paying jobs, which stimulates the working classes and middle classes to keep driving around in the rat-race and doing all the business and investment and infrastructure activities that keep the economy in its current, unsustainable state.
Covid19 has been a wake-up call in terms of how it is possible for us to live in a way that doesn't involve going out very much, but so many people are just itching to go "back to normal" instead of realizing that we should continue building on the current economic-calming because it is good in multiple ways, i.e. not just for slowing the spread of pandemic diseases, but also for climate/sustainability, and also ultimately for economic health and preventing/reversing inflation, which would/will happen if people keep reducing their spending and businesses keep figuring out ways to fulfill economic needs with lower levels of investment/borrowing.