Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Not really. (Score 1) 237

I agree that we have excess, and am glad you're pro tech. We don't need disposable novelty singing rubber fish or bottled water. It's just an illustration of the level of production we've made possible. And yes, it'd be nice if we all boycotted these things and considered the hidden costs of such tripe.

I just see it as democracy, in a sense. People apparently enjoy all this crap. To deny it is authoritarian, though. I wish we had some benevolent dictatorship running things, but that's another argument.

Ultimately, I see the current state of affairs as a natural offshoot of the processes that lead to canned food, antibiotics, and utilities. Gotta take the bad with the good.

And go nuclear power! Best option that the same people who often claim to defend the planet deride. We need to pick the best of the evils we require.

Mostly, I don't see utility in being an idealist. I understand its purity, but anticipate its futility.

Comment Re: Not really. (Score 1) 237

Self indulgence. We turned paradise into shit? I disagree. What we've done is natural and beneficial. We addressed our needs. Food, shelter, disease remedies, mental stimulation. You'd rather starve or die of an infected molar? Freeze to death? Elitist romanticism.

Yes, we're still primitive. We'll never have Star Trek, but we'll hopefully have more control over our lives than we've historically managed. What's so bad about that?

Comment Re:Different than Deepwater Horizon (Score 1) 274

You can keep him tied up in court forever.

That's the key, once again: the government - including the courts - have become skewed toward favoring massive numbers of lobbyists and legal teams. So even though the neighbor might have a case, he could never win. The government has become the enforcer of rights violations.

Polluting public property should be a criminal act not a civil issue. With public property the government could also sue.

So long as you believe that, or that another law is going to stop pollution on public grounds, politicians and their cronies will continue to laugh at you. So long as there exists public property and the potential for government to violate the rights of one group to benefit another, there will always be lobbyists buying politicians. The solution is not to pretend that another law against companies is going to fix the problem. The solution is to prohibit government violation of individual rights: privatize all property, and restrict government to the minimal role of police, courts, and military, to only uphold and protect individual rights. Such a system, so long as it existed, would offer no incentive for lobbyism as an industry to exist.

Comment Re:Different than Deepwater Horizon (Score 1) 274

Why does the corporation have no incentive to minimize pollution? Because the open waterways have been deemed "public" property by the government. Whereas if you dumped your waste on your neighbor's property, he could sue you for contamination, with public property - such as rivers, lakes, even oceans - there is the potential for corruption and political pull to override all legal deterrents.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry