Green politics?

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah, it's funny some of the most difficult debates I get into are members of the Labour Party, who's main concern (in my opinion and as I see expressed in the few debates I've had with them..) seem to be the lower classes of the country they're in. For example, they're against water rates because it's seen as a burden on those who cannot afford them (notwithstanding the fact that you can allow for this in how you structure such taxes). Whereas I would see the 'polluter pays' principle as more important.

And I'd say that no one should put a gun to someone's head (taxed) so that other peoples lifestyles are subsidised, ie there is no right to have free access to services so that one can choose to run a car or take a holiday and in the process deprive other of their property in terms of incomes or savings. Polluter pays is a natural effect of property rights.

taconnol wrote: »

I am against the idea of a free lunch because taking the environment for granted is what's gotten us into this mess! However, I don't think you can make the argument that it's necessarily the heavily mixed economy/state that is responsible for this. Sweden for example, has far more environmental legislation and a bigger government in general and they are significantly more sustainable than we are, no matter which sustainable development indicator you look at.

It is a weird dichotomy of being a leftie but trying to make people see that unlimited social freedoms are:
a) impossible - due to ecological limits - and
b) undesirable - due to the track record of populations destroying their environments when given too much freedom.?

The thing is I dont think a central government can be that smart. If in an alternate reality the Irish state had been set up on "market principles" the West coast for all I now might be a large nature reserve now. People would have naturally migrated to larger towns to access work and cheaper services. I'm not "smart" enough to tell people how or where they should live and I wouldnt be "smart" enough to run a state "sim city" style.
Back in the real world I wouldnt say Ireland is at risk of destroying its environment because people have too much freedom.
What you seem to be saying is because we provide a free lunch we need to restrict peoples freedom or penalise them in other ways to mitigate the initial policy dogma. An example is that roads are provided free but we will tax your car. No account is taken of which road, city/country etc.

taconnol wrote: »

Ooh, I'll have to think about that one..difficult questions! What do you think of as the typical Green response to the issue of global poverty?

I think you mentioned somewhere earlier that you would be happy to pay higher taxes so that poor people in the third world could have access to clean water? What scale are we talking about here? would there be other Greens that would suggest a stand off position as aid will allow more unsustainable to grow?

I'd assume that population control would be a goal? in soft ways like promoting education, possibly encouraging 3rd world states to seperate from chrch policies. At the more extreme end 1 child policies?