Green politics?

silverharp

ok, might be a bit of a meandering question but to start off does Green politics have a core position on the political spectrum. At a guess I'd say it's Left-Authoritarian with a minor Left-Anarchic strain. At the same time there must be alot of green suppporters or as possibily represented by the Green Party here more a left of centre stance but not too far from a centrist position with essentially a "green hue".

And I guess a follow on question would be, are Green issues best served by being a pressure group and academic hub then trying to actively be involved in government. Does the "broad church" work ?

And a final question, can one be Right on the political spectrum and considered Green? clearily most green issues can simply be labelled as issues so ones politics would determine the course followed.To give an example I could argue from a Right perspective that universal provision of services is a cause of the poor spatial use in Ireland so one obvious course would be to undo it and price services using a market basis. Would a traditional Green not be able to entertain this line of thinking and would define the problem in terms of poor planning and more regulations are need going forward?

p.s I started writing this in the political theory section but think its better here.

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

p.s I started writing this in the political theory section but think its better here.

No worries, it's fine here. Actually, it's a great idea for a thread

Silverharp2 wrote: »

ok, might be a bit of a meandering question but to start off does Green politics have a core position on the political spectrum.

I don't consider a recognition of the ecological limits of the planet as necessarily a leftist issue. But if we accept that the earth's resources are limited, we start to move onto the question of what is a "fair" share of resources. And I think the question of what's "fair" or not varies wildly depending on which side of the spectrum.

And then what various political positions consider the best approach to the problem would also vary.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

And I guess a follow on question would be, are Green issues best served by being a pressure group and academic hub then trying to actively be involved in government. Does the "broad church" work ?

I think each sector of the movement has it's place. Just as in say the movement to gain equal rights for women, you need people in the medical or scientific community who will support the argument (or demonstrate that there is no scientific reason to oppose it), lobby groups who educate the public and attempt to influence the political system and then you need the decision-makers to make the correct policy decisions.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

And a final question, can one be Right on the political spectrum and considered Green? clearily most green issues can simply be labelled as issues so ones politics would determine the course followed.To give an example I could argue from a Right perspective that universal provision of services is a cause of the poor spatial use in Ireland so one obvious course would be to undo it and price services using a market basis. Would a traditional Green not be able to entertain this line of thinking and would define the problem in terms of poor planning and more regulations are need going forward?

Here we get into the idea of which tools (policy or otherwise) to use in remedying the situation. I can see a lot of scope for different opinions on how best to reach a certain point but I don't see how scientific consensus on what is or isn't sustainable (in the true sense of the word) is really a political question.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

No worries, it's fine here. Actually, it's a great idea for a thread



I don't consider a recognition of the ecological limits of the planet as necessarily a leftist issue. But if we accept that the earth's resources are limited, we start to move onto the question of what is a "fair" share of resources. And I think the question of what's "fair" or not varies wildly depending on which side of the spectrum.

And then what various political positions consider the best approach to the problem would also vary.


I think each sector of the movement has it's place. Just as in say the movement to gain equal rights for women, you need people in the medical or scientific community who will support the argument (or demonstrate that there is no scientific reason to oppose it), lobby groups who educate the public and attempt to influence the political system and then you need the decision-makers to make the correct policy decisions.


Here we get into the idea of which tools (policy or otherwise) to use in remedying the situation. I can see a lot of scope for different opinions on how best to reach a certain point but I don't see how scientific consensus on what is or isn't sustainable (in the true sense of the word) is really a political question.

I think the next elections will be interesting vis a vis the Green party. It seems that green politics is more suited to the politics of protest than the politics of government.

There are those who consider the green movement as trying to impose socialism by another means. Certainly there are hints of that in their apparent desire for every higher taxes and increased social controls which are two features generally associated with socialism.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It seems that green politics is more suited to the politics of protest than the politics of government.

What makes you say that?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

There are those who consider the green movement as trying to impose socialism by another means. Certainly there are hints of that in their apparent desire for every higher taxes and increased social controls which are two features generally associated with socialism.

Your comparisons with socialism are flawed. Socialism is not defined by greater social control and taxes, but rather the ownership by either the public or workers of the means of production. A greater degree of social control (compared to what?) can be seen on either side of the political spectrum but is actually more frequent on the right, which is why the left is usually associated with the word "liberal".

Again, the question of what the environmental movement should try to achieve and how they should achieve it are two very distinct questions.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

What makes you say that?


Your comparisons with socialism are flawed. Socialism is not defined by greater social control and taxes, but rather the ownership by either the public or workers of the means of production. A greater degree of social control (compared to what?) can be seen on either side of the political spectrum but is actually more frequent on the right, which is why the left is usually associated with the word "liberal".

Again, the question of what the environmental movement should try to achieve and how they should achieve it are two very distinct questions.

I'm never really sure what terms such as "right" and "left" mean anymore, and it seems they are used nowadays more as terms of abuse th\an to try to describe political positions.

For example, many would claim Mrs Thatcher was "right" , but she also doesn't fit in with your claim that the "right" wanted to exercise more social control, as she was opposed to it.

Conversely, the old soviet union was on the "left" and certainly imposed more rigid and interfering social control than many others I can think of. Ditto Cuba and North Korea.

Certainly, in practice, Mrs thatcher on the "right" stood for less taxes less state inteferance, and the USSR and China and Korea made sure that their people didn't earn enough to pay high taxes, and rule(d) them with a degree of state interference and control which I hope we never see here.

The greens are more suited to be a party of protest, than a party in government because, as we can see, to be in government means to compromise and form alliances and water down ones objectives. Thus, the green party here are splitting between those who think that the price to be in government is too high, and those who think that to achieve anything one must be in government.

Socialism may well be defined by the ownership of the means of production, but in practice it seems to also mean more interference in the lives of the citizens by a more and more controlling government which is less and less accountable to its electorate.

It remains to be seen what the electorate think as they will make that known at the next election, and it's likely that the greens will lose seats as a result of being tarnished with the FF brush, much in the way the PD's were at the last election.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'm never really sure what terms such as "right" and "left" mean anymore, and it seems they are used nowadays more as terms of abuse th\an to try to describe political positions.

I think the terms "socialism" is a pretty common term of abuse these days, although it's rarely used accurately.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

For example, many would claim Mrs Thatcher was "right" , but she also doesn't fit in with your claim that the "right" wanted to exercise more social control, as she was opposed to it.

Thatcher is one example of a right-wing politician and indeed she would be considered one of the more socially liberal. However, this does not remove the fact that the conservatism of right-wing politics often includes conserving old social constraints, such as the idea of the "traditional family" and opposition to homosexuality.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Conversely, the old soviet union was on the "left" and certainly imposed more rigid and interfering social control than many others I can think of. Ditto Cuba and North Korea.

Fascism had no social control? Right-wing dictatorships imposed no social control? Are you for real?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Certainly, in practice, Mrs thatcher on the "right" stood for less taxes less state inteferance, and the USSR and China and Korea made sure that their people didn't earn enough to pay high taxes, and rule(d) them with a degree of state interference and control which I hope we never see here.

This is a red herring. You're going off-topic.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The greens are more suited to be a party of protest, than a party in government because, as we can see, to be in government means to compromise and form alliances and water down ones objectives. Thus, the green party here are splitting between those who think that the price to be in government is too high, and those who think that to achieve anything one must be in government.

Democracy is about compromise, for everyone involved. The alternatives are less desirable. Why does this mean that environmentalists should remove themselves from public office?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Socialism may well be defined by the ownership of the means of production, but in practice it seems to also mean more interference in the lives of the citizens by a more and more controlling government which is less and less accountable to its electorate.

This thread is not about your personal objections to socialism, which you've made quite clear. Stop going off topic.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It remains to be seen what the electorate think as they will make that known at the next election, and it's likely that the greens will lose seats as a result of being tarnished with the FF brush, much in the way the PD's were at the last election.

And as Labour was in the 1990s. Until the Irish electorate acknowledges and accepts the realities of being a minority coalition partner and stops punishing the smaller parties, FF and FG will continue to dominate Irish politics.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

I don't consider a recognition of the ecological limits of the planet as necessarily a leftist issue. But if we accept that the earth's resources are limited, we start to move onto the question of what is a "fair" share of resources. And I think the question of what's "fair" or not varies wildly depending on which side of the spectrum.

And then what various political positions consider the best approach to the problem would also vary.

I agree in that many issues are just issues, be it pollution , sustainable energy policies etc. so I wouldnt expect all things being equal that a Green policy has to have a left solution. Although my presumption is that they would.

The definition of "fair" is important. And I guess it is useful to have a stong foundation that will alllow tough decisions to be made safe in the knowedge that you are trying to attain a longer term good? but it does need to be said that any attempt to be "fair" to one person can normally be unfair to someone else. Does a particular definition of fairness only apply within a particular border for instance? transnational definitions of being fair based on certain definitions have logical and logistical problems. Take oil for instance, by one definition a geological waste product that took human ingenuity and capital to turn it into somethig useful. Now that it has become a key resource for a modern economy does its usage just depend on the market price or does it create other obligations, who decides?

taconnol wrote: »

I think each sector of the movement has it's place. Just as in say the movement to gain equal rights for women, you need people in the medical or scientific community who will support the argument (or demonstrate that there is no scientific reason to oppose it), lobby groups who educate the public and attempt to influence the political system and then you need the decision-makers to make the correct policy decisions.

I guess with womens rights the goals fairly well defined. The Green movement potentially has goals from incremental to possibly quite radical "overthowing" the present order? how does an outsider judge the message?

taconnol wrote: »

Here we get into the idea of which tools (policy or otherwise) to use in remedying the situation. I can see a lot of scope for different opinions on how best to reach a certain point but I don't see how scientific consensus on what is or isn't sustainable (in the true sense of the word) is really a political question.

Science is clearly vital and society is generally progressing as it adapts to new information. It depends on the situation, some issues may be local, car use in ireland for example is not really a scientific question whereas agricultural practices in California or other near desert climates while again being local, this time have a scientific input possibly in forecasting ground water depletion and local access to energy supplies. The government would also be an actor here based on regulation, subsidies etc.
Then further up the scale forecasting of future energy supplies and solutions is both a scientific and a political issue. The sustainability of society in terms of the resources available to it to the extent that it can be calculated will be influenced by the the actions of governments.
I guess an example here could be nuclear power (and I dont want to get into it:D) but lets just assume that in free market scenario A, rightly or wrongly the energy business decide to jump head first into it and start producing electric cars..... while in scenario B the Green lobby wins out possibly by using non scientific arguments for instance inequality with the third world, then a different track will be taken and the sustainabilty calculations will change.

I would say its not possible to seperate Science from the politcal and economic system that it exists within. Now given that we live in a mixed economy woth both private and socilaised elements to it, it does mean that problems can be tacked from different view points. The main issue becomes which solutions deliver the most "good" or the least blowback in other areas.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

… Socialism is not defined by greater social control and taxes, but rather the ownership by either the public or workers of the means of production…

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

...Socialism may well be defined by the ownership of the means of production, but in practice it seems to also mean more interference in the lives of the citizens by a more and more controlling government which is less and less accountable to its electorate...

taconnol wrote: »

I think the terms "socialism" is a pretty common term of abuse these days, although it's rarely used accurately.

This thread is not about your personal objections to socialism, which you've made quite clear. Stop going off topic.

It seems impossible to debate with you. While you seem to allow yourself liberty to discuss your views on socialism, you seem to not want to allow me to respond in kind by discussing my views on socialism.

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

so I wouldnt expect all things being equal that a Green policy has to have a left solution. Although my presumption is that they would.

why?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

The definition of "fair" is important. And I guess it is useful to have a stong foundation that will alllow tough decisions to be made safe in the knowedge that you are trying to attain a longer term good? but it does need to be said that any attempt to be "fair" to one person can normally be unfair to someone else.

Why? In what way? I could argue pretty strongly that the current unsustainable system is incredibly unfair to the large majority of people.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Does a particular definition of fairness only apply within a particular border for instance?

If we take a system as anything that has interdependent parts, than national borders cease to have much meaning. Of course, politically they do but there's no point making Ireland sustainable if the rest of the world is not, at least not in my opinion.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

transnational definitions of being fair based on certain definitions have logical and logistical problems. Take oil for instance, by one definition a geological waste product that took human ingenuity and capital to turn it into somethig useful. Now that it has become a key resource for a modern economy does its usage just depend on the market price or does it create other oblogations, who decides?

OK, if we leave behind the word "fair" for the moment and instead all at the word "sustainable". The definitions and principles are quite universal. Oil is non-renewable and causes systematically increasing concentrations of compounds in the earth's atmosphere that are unsustainable. Therefore the use of oil is unsustainable. That doesn't mean we can't use oil to help us reach a more sustainable system but the continued use of oil with no future replacement in mind is unsustainable.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I guess with womens rights the goals fairly well defined. The Green movement potentially has goals from incremental to possibly quite radical "overthowing" the present order? how does an outsider judge the message?

I think sustainability does have some very basic prinicples that we can all agree on. OK, we can argue about how best to get there but the scientific consensus on sustainability is quite sound. And yes, the Green movement does involve changes in our system, not just cosmetic changes. What do you mean by an "outsider"?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Science is clearly vital and society is generally progressing as it adapts to new information. It depends on the situation, some issues may be local, car use in ireland for example is not really a scientific question whereas agricultural practices in California or other near desert climates while again being local, this time have a scientific input possibly in forecasting ground water depletion and local access to energy supplies. The government would also be an actor here based on regulation, subsidies etc.

In every case, the same principles apply that certain resources are being used in an unsustainable way. Cars use oil, which is unsustainable. Desert-based agriculture uses fossil water, which is non-renewable and therefore unsustainable. These are all just different examples of unsustainable practices. I would agree with you that government has a role (indeed, a responsibility) in taking the long-term view/vision and redirecting society onto a more sustainable path.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Then further up the scale forecasting of future energy supplies and solutions is both a scientific and a political issue. The sustainability of society in terms of the resources available to it to the extent that it can be calculated will be influenced by the the actions of governments.

Again, the basic principles are universal. The more specific details of how much of a particular resource is left or how much energy a particular technology can generate are again the scope of science: there are no value judgments involved.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I guess an example here could be nuclear power (and I dont want to get into it:D) but lets just assume that in free market scenario A, rightly or wrongly the energy business decide to jump head first into it and start producing electric cars..... while in scenario B the Green lobby wins out possibly by using non scientific arguments for instance inequality with the third world, then a different track will be taken and the sustainabilty calculations will change.

Do you mean that the strategic decisions on how to reach sustainability will change? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I would say its not possible to seperate Science from the politcal and economic system that it exists within. Now given that we live in a mixed economy woth both private and socilaised elements to it, it does mean that problems can be tacked from different view points. The main issue becomes which solutions deliver the most "good" or the least blowback in oter areas.

I believe in the existence of certain scientific facts that are free of value judgements. For example, oil is a finite resource - that is a fact. I don't think subjecting all science to the argument of relativity and therefore diluting it helps. I agree with you about the debate over which solutions, strategies or tools to use. Personally, I think differing views on how best to reach sustainability can only be a good thing

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It seems impossible to debate with you. While you seem to allow yourself liberty to discuss your views on socialism, you seem to not want to allow me to respond in kind by discussing my views on socialism.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss socialism: I said you are not allowed to go off on tangential rants about how much you dislike socialism.

No further in-thread discussion of moderation.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

why?

I havnt come across Green commentators for instance suggesting market based solutions for the provision of services (possible spatial solution) or in the economic sphere being strong advocates of fiscal responsibility. At the extreme end there might be concerns over the financial system but I'd hazzard that the solutions would be Left in outlook

taconnol wrote: »

Why? In what way? I could argue pretty strongly that the current unsustainable system is incredibly unfair to the large majority of people.

possibly but if the solutions involve restrictions in freedoms or change in property rights then unfair solutions would be invoked to solve a perceived problem

taconnol wrote: »

If we take a system as anything that has interdependent parts, than national borders cease to have much meaning. Of course, politically they do but there's no point making Ireland sustainable if the rest of the world is not, at least not in my opinion.

Most issues are not so black and white. How the West deals/interacts with Africa for instance is a regional issue mainly however the debate will be fraimed differently based on your concept of fairness

taconnol wrote: »

OK, if we leave behind the word "fair" for the moment and instead all at the word "sustainable". The definitions and principles are quite universal. Oil is non-renewable and causes systematically increasing concentrations of compounds in the earth's atmosphere that are unsustainable. Therefore the use of oil is unsustainable. That doesn't mean we can't use oil to help us reach a more sustainable system but the continued use of oil with no future replacement in mind is unsustainable.

I'd agree that the use of oil has sustainability issues and much blowback if one adds in the political cost of war which may not be seen at the petrol pump. So should oil reserves be wrestled from dictators , for sure no, but again it opens up a range of solutions, road pricing for instance would be Right solution which would lower the amount of miles driven because market prices are used as opposed to sin taxes in an effort to "punish" people

taconnol wrote: »

What do you mean by an "outsider"?

On the assumption that the average person on the street doesnt/cant have a single view of Green objectives. Again incremental v radical.

taconnol wrote: »

Do you mean that the strategic decisions on how to reach sustainability will change? I don't really understand what you're saying here.

indeed, if I'm suggesting that Green policies tend to be non market based then certain solutions will not be looked at based on idiological reasons?

taconnol wrote: »

I believe in the existence of certain scientific facts that are free of value judgements. For example, oil is a finite resource - that is a fact. I don't think subjecting all science to the argument of relativity and therefore diluting it helps. I agree with you about the debate over which solutions, strategies or tools to use. Personally, I think differing views on how best to reach sustainability can only be a good thing

That I agree on but it does bring us back to the Green perspective where there would be differing opions (possibly) based on individual/property rights.

silverharp

Just to add, in speaking about left and right I make a further implicit distinction of voluntary v authoritarian. So there would be an X and Y axis with a Fascist in one corner, Libertarians in another, Left Libertarians (Communitarians and the like) and Soviet like politics in the other 2 corners.

So I guess part of my question is, is there area within the 2 axis where green politicla and economic view sit and if so why? and if there can be areas in different quadrants, what does it mean?

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I havnt come across Green commentators for instance suggesting market based solutions for the provision of services (possible spatial solution) or in the economic sphere being strong advocates of fiscal responsibility.

Oh but that's not true at all. There have been a significant amount of publications on the "green economy" recently. The EU ETS system, other pollution credit trading mechanisms and taxes on pollution, such as the carbon tax are all market-based solutions to environmental/sustainability issues.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

At the extreme end there might be concerns over the financial system but I'd hazzard that the solutions would be Left in outlook

Well, if the extreme economic liberal policies are part of the reason we are where we are, it is natural to argue that more regulation might be part of the solution. I'm not sure that's necessarily a Left position, but rather just more left than the current one. (Just look at everyone calling Obama a socialist in the US at the moment - it would be hilarious if it weren't so serious).

Silverharp2 wrote: »

possibly but if the solutions involve restrictions in freedoms or change in property rights then unfair solutions would be invoked to solve a perceived problem

Mmm..that assumes that any restrictions in freedoms or changes in property rights are necessarily "unfair". Unfair to who? To which parts of society? Can you give some examples?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Most issues are not so black and white. How the West deals/interacts with Africa for instance is a regional issue mainly however the debate will be fraimed differently based on your concept of fairness

Fairnes, in the context of sustainability, means the maintaining of a healthy social fabric that meets the needs of individuals. I personally don't know of any other definition of "fairness" that complies with the tenets of sustainability.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I'd agree that the use of oil has sustainability issues and much blowback if one adds in the political cost of war which may not be seen at the petrol pump. So should oil reserves be wrestled from dictators , for sure no, but again it opens up a range of solutions, road pricing for instance would be Right solution which would lower the amount of miles driven because market prices are used as opposed to sin taxes in an effort to "punish" people

Well I don't necessarily agree that oil reserves should be wrestled from dictators - I don't our current efforts are going very well at the moment in Iraq.. But I do think that in being so dependent on oil, we in the West facilitate intolerant regimes. In fact in the book "Hot, Flat and Crowded", Friedman argues that there is a direct correlation between oil prices and intolerance in oil-rich intolerant regimes. The more money the despots have, the more easily they can buy off political allies and ignore things like equality, tolerance and justice.

You seem to view market-based tools as the "right solutions". But you also consider taxes as punishment. Would you agree that market-based tools can be used as both carrots and sticks in order to modify behaviour?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

On the assumption that the average person on the street doesnt/cant have a single view of Green objectives. Again incremental v radical.

So you're saying the average person on the street is an "outsider" to sustainable politics? Sorry, I'm not that well versed in political theory so I don't understand what you're saying with incremental/radical! Do you mean that because most people don't understand the basic principles of sustainability, we cannot have radical change but instead must move incrementally towards a more sustainable society?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

indeed, if I'm suggesting that Green policies tend to be non market based then certain solutions will not be looked at based on idiological reasons?

I don't understand why you're suggesting that green policies tend to be non-market based. I believe the market to be a tool that we can use for our purposes but I don't have blind faith that the market can somehow intuitively lead us towards a more sustainable society if we just leave it alone.

And why are you saying that non-market-based solutions are necessarily ideologically driven? Any change we want to bring about is the result of a value judgement or ideology. The idea that only market-based tools should be used is itself an ideology or value judgement.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

That I agree on but it does bring us back to the Green perspective where there would be differing opions (possibly) based on individual/property rights.

Why do you think there is just one singular "Green perspective"?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

So I guess part of my question is, is there area within the 2 axis where green politicla and economic view sit and if so why? and if there can be areas in different quadrants, what does it mean?

Again, I don't think acknowledgement of the basic scientific principles of sustainability (ie laws of thermodynamics etc) is incompatible with any particular point on the political and economic spectrum. Rather, political and economic ideas influence what a person might think is the best way to achieve sustainability (for example, ban all motor cars versus tax car usage and build decent public transport systems).

Environmentalists exist all around the political spectrum.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

Well, if the extreme economic liberal policies are part of the reason we are where we are, it is natural to argue that more regulation might be part of the solution. I'm not sure that's necessarily a Left position, but rather just more left than the current one. (Just look at everyone calling Obama a socialist in the US at the moment - it would be hilarious if it weren't so serious)

I'm not defending the status quo, big government and big business creates too many special interests. Looking at Obama he could bail out a car company and pass carbon trading laws in the same day, hardly consistant.

taconnol wrote: »

Mmm..that assumes that any restrictions in freedoms or changes in property rights are necessarily "unfair". Unfair to who? To which parts of society? Can you give some examples?

Lets take a local example, one off housing as I hinted at it before. If its agreed that its a problem, without going into what possibly created the situation. You have 3 possible solutions, restrict property rights ( you can own land but on build on it) taxation or get rid of subsdies that promote the activity. My definition of fair would be more inclined to get rid of the negetive incentives first as opposed to legislating what people can or cannot do.
Another one might be increasing taxes (literally taking away property), labelled as green while at the same time running deficits? contradiction no?

taconnol wrote: »

Fairnes, in the context of sustainability, means the maintaining of a healthy social fabric that meets the needs of individuals. I personally don't know of any other definition of "fairness" that complies with the tenets of sustainability.

Seems reasonable but at the same time someone in the labour party and myself could read very different things into it. would the solutions involve allowing communities to self organise or would there be a heavy top down attempt to coordinate/control services

taconnol wrote: »

Well I don't necessarily agree that oil reserves should be wrestled from dictators - I don't our current efforts are going very well at the moment in Iraq.. But I do think that in being so dependent on oil, we in the West facilitate intolerant regimes. In fact in the book "Hot, Flat and Crowded", Friedman argues that there is a direct correlation between oil prices and intolerance in oil-rich intolerant regimes. The more money the despots have, the more easily they can buy off political allies and ignore things like equality, tolerance and justice.

You seem to view market-based tools as the "right solutions". But you also consider taxes as punishment. Would you agree that market-based tools can be used as both carrots and sticks in order to modify behaviour?

And I agree, even as a consumer I'd prefer not to be depandant on resources that have political risk attached, or suppliers that may lie about there reserves as has been hinted at in the past about contries like Saudi.

I personally dont believe that taxes or subsidies should be used as carrots or sticks. I could point to property reliefs here as an example of the danger of subsidising "worthy" actions, on the flip side taxing as a stick doesnt impress me either. Where do the taxes go? A lot of information is relayed if the market is used, one off housing v village and towns, in this case the market signal is lost in the universal provision of services.

taconnol wrote: »

So you're saying the average person on the street is an "outsider" to sustainable politics? Sorry, I'm not that well versed in political theory so I don't understand what you're saying with incremental/radical! Do you mean that because most people don't understand the basic principles of sustainability, we cannot have radical change but instead must move incrementally towards a more sustainable society?

only in the sense of listening to the Green message (depending on where they come across it). I guess the public face of the green movement are the various Green parties so they would be getting a "lite" version, more recycling, better public transport etc. nothing too radical?
How far do you expect people to go? nobody wants to commute 2 hours a day, only see the kids at the weekend, both parents "having" to work if one would like to stay at home however at the same time I'm sure there is a limit to the amount of taxes people want to pay or to be increasingly told what they can or cant do?

I'll pick up on the other points tomorrow , anyone else out there, feel free to join in:)

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I'm not defending the status quo, big government and big business creates too many special interests. Looking at Obama he could bail out a car company and pass carbon trading laws in the same day, hardly consistant.

Why is that inconsistent? Why be a slave to a certain economic tenet when the reality is far more complex? Are you talking specifically about the car vs carbon here or just about bailing out any company? Governments can reward certain types of behaviour and restrict other - it isn't a question of allowing everything or restricting everything.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Lets take a local example, one off housing as I hinted at it before. If its agreed that its a problem, without going into what possibly created the situation. You have 3 possible solutions, restrict property rights ( you can own land but on build on it) taxation or get rid of subsdies that promote the activity. My definition of fair would be more inclined to get rid of the negetive incentives first as opposed to legislating what people can or cannot do.
Another one might be increasing taxes (literally taking away property), labelled as green while at the same time running deficits? contradiction no?

I don't understand what you mean here about "running deficits"...In your above example, I would agree that removing the carrot is the first step before you introduce the stick is the most appropriate form of action. But as for not legislating what people can or cannot do, there are thousands of laws out there and they exist for a reason - because these behaviours impact on other people. The whole picture is not being expressed in the above example, because we are not discussing the impacts of one-off housing or the justifications for restricting it. SO in deciding what is and isn't fair means weighing up both sides, not just the rights of the person who wants to build a one-off house, but also the people that don't want the view spoiled/social concerns about over-dependency on private car use/water pollution through septic tanks/impacts on tourism/

Also, taxation is not just about taking people's money but about introducing a market signal and also generating funds to deal with the problem brought about by a particular activity - say causing eutrophication of ground water.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Seems reasonable but at the same time someone in the labour party and myself could read very different things into it. would the solutions involve allowing communities to self organise or would there be a heavy top down attempt to coordinate/control services

So what do you read into it? What is your definition of fairness? I haven't discussed strategies or tools or top-heaviness or any type of implementation - I'm merely talking about basic principles here.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I personally dont believe that taxes or subsidies should be used as carrots or sticks. I could point to property reliefs here as an example of the danger of subsidising "worthy" actions,

That's an example of a bad use of taxes - it doesn't necessarily negate the argument that taxes and subsidies should be used. It's a big generalisation you're trying to make.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

on the flip side taxing as a stick doesnt impress me either. Where do the taxes go?

Well in the recent budget, a carbon tax was implemented and a large part of it is going towards offsetting the impacts on lower-income families that would suffer fuel poverty and a significant amount will be invested in improving the energy efficiency of houses. It was all discussed in the Commission on Taxation Report available online.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

A lot of information is relayed if the market is used, one off housing v village and towns, in this case the market signal is lost in the universal provision of services.

I don't understand your example here of housing/villages... The market has proven to be a very effective tool for example the recent changes in motor tax have impacted on car buying patterns, resulting in 73% of purchases being made in the most efficient bands since the changes, versus 43% in the first half of 2008, according to SEAI.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

only in the sense of listening to the Green message (depending on where they come across it). I guess the public face of the green movement are the various Green parties so they would be getting a "lite" version, more recycling, better public transport etc. nothing too radical?

Well green/sustainable policies are not mainstream in Ireland. The Irish Green party has had to compromise a lot and most environmental legislation has come from the EU. But that's because people in Ireland are not generally interested in Green issues to the point where it would significantly influence their voting patterns - hence the other political parties in Ireland have pretty woeful environmental policies - by any environmentalist's standards.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

How far do you expect people to go? nobody wants to commute 2 hours a day, only see the kids at the weekend, both parents "having" to work if one would like to stay at home however at the same time I'm sure there is a limit to the amount of taxes people want to pay or to be increasingly told what they can or cant do?

I really don't get this argument about "being told what to do". There are ecological limits that must be acknowledged and respected. Doing otherwise is sheer folly as we hurtle on with our heads down until we reach an ecological crisis, such as what happened in Galway a few years ago. It is up to the government to take a long-term vision of sustainability when considering today's actions and guiding society towards that vision.

I personally don't consider that we have the right to continue on our merry, unsustainable way to the detriment of future generations, or indeed to the detriment of other people around the world. You just have to look at this very recent study about how the EU 'outsources' its emissions to see that the planet cannot support even the way us few privileged lives, let alone allowing everyone on the planet today and in the future live as luxuriously and unsustainably as we do.

I wish it were the case that we had access to 10 planets so everyone could own a car as I do, take 5 or 6 return flights to Europe per year, eat as much meat as I do, buy as much unnecessary junk and use up as much water as I do. But it simply isn't reality. So if allowing others space to live more comfortably (as in access to sanitation, running water, etc) means that I may have to reduce the impact of my lifestyle, I really don't see what I have to be complaining about.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

So what do you read into it? What is your definition of fairness? I haven't discussed strategies or tools or top-heaviness or any type of implementation - I'm merely talking about basic principles here.

Fairness should not reduce property rights or personal freedom as it would be unfair to the people affected (if they object). For example you may have mentioned above about peoples rights to view unspoilt landscapes. This "right" has has no basis in property rights. I cant judge peoples subjective preferences so making them central to a public policy would be based on something quite wooly.

taconnol wrote: »

That's an example of a bad use of taxes - it doesn't necessarily negate the argument that taxes and subsidies should be used. It's a big generalisation you're trying to make.

fair enough but governments have a habit of getting things wrong and miscalculating. Its not a great institution to leave to the job of judging how scare resources should be used or incentivising particular behaviour. After all we are talking about people's right to get on with their lives

taconnol wrote: »

I don't understand your example here of housing/villages... The market has proven to be a very effective tool for example the recent changes in motor tax have impacted on car buying patterns, resulting in 73% of purchases being made in the most efficient bands since the changes, versus 43% in the first half of 2008, according to SEAI. .

Might have different definitions of what a market solution is. When I say market solution I mean that an individual should pay the economic cost of using an asset or resource. For example if someone can mail a letter to a person who lives a mile form anywhere and it costs €2 but the individual only pays 60c, scarce resources are being mispriced with the effect that the individuals involved lose the market signal to react to the reality of the situation. Its quite obvious that in Ireland at least a lot of spatial type issues have this factor as part of the mix.

While taxes may work in a very limited sense, it cant capture the whole situation. If person A buys a small car due to some tax incentive but drives 2 hours a day because of planning system failures any gains or losses will be difficult to calculate.

taconnol wrote: »

Well green/sustainable policies are not mainstream in Ireland. The Irish Green party has had to compromise a lot and most environmental legislation has come from the EU. But that's because people in Ireland are not generally interested in Green issues to the point where it would significantly influence their voting patterns - hence the other political parties in Ireland have pretty woeful environmental policies - by any environmentalist's standards.

That is fair enough, the reality here or even in a country like Germany is that I dont see a green party been given a blank sheet mandate. So maybe no point speculating?

taconnol wrote: »

I really don't get this argument about "being told what to do". There are ecological limits that must be acknowledged and respected. Doing otherwise is sheer folly as we hurtle on with our heads down until we reach an ecological crisis, such as what happened in Galway a few years ago. It is up to the government to take a long-term vision of sustainability when considering today's actions and guiding society towards that vision.

The market can respect these limits if its allowed to. Pollution can be defined as a trespass if property rights are clear. The flooding in the west last year could be put down to a tragedy of the commons where no one was really responsibile for anything. Planning permission was given in flood plains which by definition displaced common sense which may otherwise have surfaced and if not then "learning lessons" were due and it would be slow to happen again.
Again my reason for taking counterpoints is to demonstrate that solutions are available which do not depend on authoritarian solutions or that the "telling people what to do" can make things worse, not to mention one is taking away choice from people in an artificial manner. Ethics require the ability to choose and learn?

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Fairness should not reduce property rights or personal freedom as it would be unfair to the people affected (if they object). For example you may have mentioned above about peoples rights to view unspoilt landscapes. This "right" has has no basis in property rights. I cant judge peoples subjective preferences so making them central to a public policy would be based on something quite wooly.

I agree - deriving what's "fair" from property rights alone is only one (and in my opinion flawed) way to identify what is fair. Just because you own something, it doesn't necessarily follow that you should be allowed to do whatever you want on it, regardless of other people. The view is not a physical thing that you can divide up but it does have have a value and it's deterioration can have an impact on other people or more generally on something like tourism.

So you're saying we shouldn't try and achieve fairness because it's too "woolly"? What's fair is not going to be a cut and dry matter - just look at the arguments that are weighed up every day in our courts, where the judicial system looks not only at the law but also on the merits of certain cases. Just because an ideal is abstract and messy, doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for it. But certain principles can be agreed on (again, look at the judiciary system) and we can try to do our best: perfection is not the point.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

fair enough but governments have a habit of getting things wrong and miscalculating. Its not a great institution to leave to the job of judging how scare resources should be used or incentivising particular behaviour. After all we are talking about people's right to get on with their lives

Government is not perfect but...which other institution would you have do it? The unregulated market? Unfettered business? I think you'll find that whatever the track record of mistakes in government, the free market and businesses are quite probably one of the worst way to judge scarce resources, short of pure anarchy. Quarterly results, dividends to stakeholders, bonuses rewarded off the back of annual profits - these are not the sort of incentives that foster a long-term strategy. Moreover, the purpose of these companies is not to protect resources but rather to extract as much money out of them as possible. Regulation is mainly what obliges companies to take into consideration issues like the sustainability of palm oil and thus internalise these costs. Left to themselves, companies would externalise every single cost.

That's not to say that the market and the private sector doesn't have it's place - we need the private sector to innovate and provide alternatives to unsustainable ways of doing things. But we're not just talking about people's right to get on with their lives, we're talking about the destruction of other people's ability today and the ability of people in the future to meet their needs, while we're busy today worrying about our wants. Another example of the EU's outsourcing of it's resources - we are simply incapable of living off the land we have to support our lifestyles and are forced to look outside Europe for water, food, etc. This is not about restricting trade, but the balance is completely off:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/food-water-africa-land-grab


I'll answer the rest later

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Government is not perfect but...which other institution would you have do it? The unregulated market? Unfettered business?

How about a regulated market or a business "fettered" (is there such a word??) by regulations too.

Currently, the markets and business is not unregulated, its just that the regulation is not very good, the fault of the government.

I'm not sure how many have faith in the governments ability to achieve very much and, certainly in the past, our government has shown what happens when it interferes in the planning process.

The problem is that governments are not very good at managing, and when a business is "managed" or owned by the government ( ie FAS, IDA, ESB etc), they appear to become overstaffed and expensive.

CJhaughey

Interesting article in the Guardian today Linky
I wonder if this is reflected in the way that the GP are trying to get another Minister in place, ie we are virtuous so you have to excuse us.
The lack of noise regarding the Lost at sea scheme from the GP is also deafening, given that they were making a lot of noise pre-election about this issue.

Cunsiderthis

CJhaughey wrote: »

Interesting article in the Guardian today Linky
I wonder if this is reflected in the way that the GP are trying to get another Minister in place, ie we are virtuous so you have to excuse us.
The lack of noise regarding the Lost at sea scheme from the GP is also deafening, given that they were making a lot of noise pre-election about this issue.

The article suggests that going green makes you mean. Its obvious that to use less resources is likely to make you "mean" and surely thats a good thing?

CJhaughey

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The article suggests that going green makes you mean. Its obvious that to use less resources is likely to make you "mean" and surely thats a good thing?

If you bothered read the article it suggests that people who consider themselves to have done their bit for the environment attempt to balance it out by cheating more than others.

Cunsiderthis

CJhaughey wrote: »

If you bothered read the article it suggests that people who consider themselves to have done their bit for the environment attempt to balance it out by cheating more than others.

That's the problem with pasting links to articles rather than discussing ones own opinion! those who read the articles might focus on another part of it rather than the bit you want them to focus on!

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

How about a regulated market or a business "fettered" (is there such a word??) by regulations too.

Oh sure, we definitely need the market.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Currently, the markets and business is not unregulated, its just that the regulation is not very good, the fault of the government.

I would consider there to be a very low level of regulation, and some of it isn't very good, yes. Is that the fault of the government or the fault of the people who vote in the government? I don't think you can concentrate all fault, especially in a democracy, with the government.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'm not sure how many have faith in the governments ability to achieve very much and, certainly in the past, our government has shown what happens when it interferes in the planning process.

Indeed, but there are also plenty of examples of governments that have "interfered" very successfully in planning, such as in most of Europe. The US and Ireland, where they have taken more of a "hands-off" approach has resulted in very low density, single-use developments leading to very high levels of private car dependency and poor public transport.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The problem is that governments are not very good at managing, and when a business is "managed" or owned by the government ( ie FAS, IDA, ESB etc), they appear to become overstaffed and expensive.

Well, I think some things must necessarily be managed by the government, such as the national grid (EirGrid) and the phone system (should never have been sold to Eircom) - these are national assets. Now, that's not to say they shouldn't be managed like a business as such, but many issues need long-term investment in a way that the private sector might be reluctant to carry out.

CJhaughey wrote: »

Interesting article in the Guardian today Linky
I wonder if this is reflected in the way that the GP are trying to get another Minister in place, ie we are virtuous so you have to excuse us.
The lack of noise regarding the Lost at sea scheme from the GP is also deafening, given that they were making a lot of noise pre-election about this issue.

CJHaughey, this thread is not to descend into Green Party-bashing. There are plenty of threads on that topic in the Politics Forum.

silverharp

Just to add another observation. If one looks at the Peak Oil "community", there appears to be a broader basis of ideas. Some maybe free market Libertarians, some are anarchistic in nature and probably a broad range of centerists that just want things done. I just feel rightly or wrongly the Green umbrella is more alienating. One example springs to mind , city planning. My "common sense" no particular political bias would suggest that the population of Dublin would be better served by living in a footprint possibly half the size. Height restrictions on offices and apartments mainly should have been got rid of years ago.
My guess is that many Greens would be against this even though its not a question of science? am I being too hard?

Macha

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Just to add another observation. If one looks at the Peak Oil "community", there appears to be a broader basis of ideas. Some maybe free market Libertarians, some are anarchistic in nature and probably a broad range of centerists that just want things done. I just feel rightly or wrongly the Green umbrella is more alienating.

Do you mean the word "green" is alienating, as in many people would recognise ecological/natural resources limits but would not feel comfortable identifying themselves as "green"? I wonder why that is?

Silverharp2 wrote: »

One example springs to mind , city planning. My "commen sense" no particular political bias would suggest that the population of Dublin would be better served by living in a footprint possibly half the size. Height restrictions on offices and apartments mainly should have been got rid of years ago.
By guess is that many Greens would be against this even though its not a question of science? am I being too hard?

Mm.. the more sustainable method of urban planning, and one that most environmentalists would adhere to (I think..) is higher density, mixed-use development with an emphasis on public transport links. Yes, you're right in thinking there will always be people who say no to everything but they're not being realistic: either the office blocks grow up, or they grow out and everyone knows which one is more sustainable. Of course this has to be balanced with other concerns like conservation (people come to Dublin city centre to see the Victorian facades, etc). But just go onto Google Earth and look at the suburbs of Blackrock, Dublin, everywhere - stretching out - a total mess.

I think the Green movement, perhaps like every movement, has its idealistic fringe but at the same time there will always be the more moderate, realistic elements that hopefully win out.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Indeed, but there are also plenty of examples of governments that have "interfered" very successfully in planning, such as in most of Europe. The US and Ireland, where they have taken more of a "hands-off" approach has resulted in very low density, single-use developments...

"hands-off" suggests that the government wanted to interfere less and allow individuals to make up their own minds more. Perhaps that what individuals wanted? You appear to think it is a bad idea to allow individuals more choice in where and how they want to live, and I don't recognise our planning laws in Ireland to be very lax.

Why should individuals be forced into higher density living by a government by diktat? Do you really think that individuals should be denied choice and that the government knows best? I hope not, but you do seem to be saying that.

silverharp

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

"hands-off" suggests that the government wanted to interfere less and allow individuals to make up their own minds more. Perhaps that what individuals wanted? You appear to think it is a bad idea to allow individuals more choice in where and how they want to live, and I don't recognise our planning laws in Ireland to be very lax.

Why should individuals be forced into higher density living by a government by diktat? Do you really think that individuals should be denied choice and that the government knows best? I hope not, but you do seem to be saying that.

I agree as I believe that "diktat" decisions are subject to political compromise and corruption. Most people will make perfectly rational decisions in relation to where they want to live and work if they are presented with the full economic cost when making their decisions. However if the gov. provides people with "free" roads and other services wherever they want to live yet at the same time artificially increases the cost of city land due to artificial land use policies, it has 2 main consequenses , wasting resouces and leaving the door open to more interference in peoples lives. is it any wonder that it is "rational" to spend 3 to 3 hours commuting per day?

Macha

Why do you feel the need to use the word "diktat"? You say that governments are susceptible to compromise and corruption - but are humans not? The logical conclusion of your argument is basically minimal government. Do you think that this is either desirable or will lead to a more sustainable management of our natural resources?

The discussion here is constantly re-focused on the "freedom" of individuals, basically Western individuals, and there is no discussion of the impacts that the actions resulting from these freedoms have on other people.

Cunsiderthis, look at the quality of life in somewhere like Stockholm versus Dublin. It is far, far better in Stockholm where public transport is efficient, yes densities are higher, everything is far more within reach and people don't have to own a car (and the added expense that goes with it) and spend 4 hours a day on the M50.

bonkey

Decisions are always made on some sort of value-system.

Individuals will often give greater weight to options which give them a direct, personal benefit, and lesser weight to options which give them personally less benefit but which are societally more advantageous.

A government, however, will at times find itself in a position where it needs to put the societal issues above the satisfaction of the individuals within that society.

Take the issue at hand here...housing permission and associated regulation.

If a government sees that the current policy is leading to problematic societal costs, then there should be an onus on a responsible government to do something about that. That "something" may not always be popular, but it doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Cunsider this wrote:

Why should individuals be forced into higher density living by a government by diktat? Do you really think that individuals should be denied choice and that the government knows best?

Whatever about the government knowing best, let me ask a different question about teh same issue.

Do you believe it is fair and reasonable that society pay the cost of allowing individuals this freedom?

Lower density living incurs costs...not just at a "green" level (which is the issue here) but even at other levels.

If, for example, it costs on average 5 times as much* for a one-off rural development to be provided with amenities in comparison to managed suburban developments, is it fair that this cost be borne by society to the advantage of the individual? Why should I, as a theoretical suburban dweller, subsidise you, a theoretical rural dweller? Would I be trying to deny you your freedom by saying that, in such a case, you should pay your own way?

If we could agree that "paying your own way" was a fair approach, then the net result would be we would support an initiative that would mean some people could no longer afford the choice they would like to make. In effect, what some would see as a "fair" approach, others would see as forcing people to live in conditions other then what they would choose. Some would see it as discriminatory...as the richer you are, the more freedom you have (as though this was not already the case).

When it comes to issues "green", one major underlying argument is that we (particularly in the developed world) don't pay our way. There are hidden (and not-so-hidden) costs to the freedoms that we have. A lot of the opposition seems to be based on the idea that it is somehow unreasonable or unfair to suggest that we pay these costs....because to do so would negatively effect us. Green politics are an attempt (sometimes misguided, admittedly) to move in a direction where we start paying more of our fair share.

As to why a government can "force" such things by "diktat"...that's how our government works. Green issues are no different to any other issues they address in this way. We elect them to make decisions and decide policy...and that's what they do.


* I don't know if it does. Its a hypothetical question to highlight a point.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to use the word "diktat"? You say that governments are susceptible to compromise and corruption - but are humans not? The logical conclusion of your argument is basically minimal government. Do you think that this is either desirable or will lead to a more sustainable management of our natural resources?

The discussion here is constantly re-focused on the "freedom" of individuals, basically Western individuals, and there is no discussion of the impacts that the actions resulting from these freedoms have on other people.

The argument could go that if individuals make mistakes why centralize and make the mistakes systemic, for sure people will make mistakes if assets and services are mispriced by the state.

The point of the thread though was not to lecture anyone on free markets etc. more to tease out why free market solutions would be outside the Pale given that they could avoid "tragedy of the commons" situations and would avoid waste in the provision of services. We live in a society where mixed solutions are sought but at the core there is an acknowledgement of private property and personal freedom, as in I can own my own house and I can broadly choose where to live based on my resources. The question is, is the Green vision a centrerist one ? but if not where is the "centre"?

You will probably need to expand on your vision of how to deal with problems in the Third world. I'm against mercantilism, crony governments, trade barriers and the state aid that props them up however I'm at a loss to understand how my lifestyle is causing any direct harm to societies in Africa or that I owe them some legally enforceable debt.

Cunsiderthis

bonkey wrote: »

Lower density living incurs costs...not just at a "green" level (which is the issue here) but even at other levels.

There are problems with all sorts of living arrangements. Our experiment in Ireland with higher density living arrangements, in ballymun, proved disastrous. That was, we must remember, a program which was sugested and carried out by the government.

I don't put as much faith in the abilities of our government to make the "right" decisions, and impose them by diktat, or by whatever word we want to use, on the rest of us.

If it comes to individuals deciding what is best for them, or the government deciding it knows best and to impose the decision of the government on individuals, I know which I prefer. If the government is to decide how and where we all live, then that's not a society in which , I believe, many of us would want to live.

It's not as if the governments we have elected have a good track record in dictating how and where individuals should live, and anyone who thinks otherwise should consider the example of Ballymun, or Tallaght, both imposed by a government and both which have led to appalling problems.

Ask those who live in Tallaght or lived in the towers in Ballymun what they think, and I'd be amazed if you didn't quickly learn that the government's diktat created disgusting living conditions.

bonkey wrote: »

If, for example, it costs on average 5 times as much* for a one-off rural development to be provided with amenities in comparison to managed suburban developments, is it fair that this cost be borne by society to the advantage of the individual? Why should I, as a theoretical suburban dweller, subsidise you, a theoretical rural dweller? Would I be trying to deny you your freedom by saying that, in such a case, you should pay your own way?

I tend to agree with you, and don't think "society" should subsidise me in the example you give.

bonkey wrote: »

If we could agree that "paying your own way" was a fair approach, then the net result would be we would support an initiative that would mean some people could no longer afford the choice they would like to make. In effect, what some would see as a "fair" approach, others would see as forcing people to live in conditions other then what they would choose. Some would see it as discriminatory...as the richer you are, the more freedom you have (as though this was not already the case).

The richer one is now, the more freedom one has. The only thing money gives the individual is the abillity to make choices. And the lack of money denies the individual the ability to make choices.

I can't think of any society in the world where that is not the case, from Cuba to the USA to China to Israel.

Every society discriminates in many ways, and even in communist or socialist societies, discrimination was not done away with.

bonkey wrote: »

When it comes to issues "green", one major underlying argument is that we (particularly in the developed world) don't pay our way. There are hidden (and not-so-hidden) costs to the freedoms that we have. A lot of the opposition seems to be based on the idea that it is somehow unreasonable or unfair to suggest that we pay these costs....because to do so would negatively effect us. Green politics are an attempt (sometimes misguided, admittedly) to move in a direction where we start paying more of our fair share.

As to why a government can "force" such things by "diktat"...that's how our government works. Green issues are no different to any other issues they address in this way. We elect them to make decisions and decide policy...and that's what they do.


* I don't know if it does. Its a hypothetical question to highlight a point.

When it comes to "paying our way" I'm not really sure what that means. Who decides we are not paying our way, and who decides how much more we should pay, and in what form we should pay it?

When you say "we" , I assume you mean what's called "the west". If so, by buying goods now manufactured in, for example, China and India, I'd say we are helping them to employ people and help those economies.

If we have to "pay" more, "we" will have less available to buy their goods and hence less people will be employed.

It's not easy as the effects of tampering are rarely understood, and often lead to effects we had not planned for.

dynamick

Silverharp2 wrote: »

...does Green politics have a core position on the political spectrum. At a guess I'd say it's Left-Authoritarian with a minor Left-Anarchic strain. At the same time there must be alot of green suppporters or as possibily represented by the Green Party here more a left of centre stance but not too far from a centrist position with essentially a "green hue".

There is no one green position and part of the idea of the green movement is to allow for a lot of discussion and to be willing to abandon ideas that have been found not to work. The green position is that both left and right wing administrations have pursued industrialism to the detriment of the environment. The basic green position is that environmental issues should be given a higher priority than they are currently accorded.

The greens' ideological opponents are conservatives who want to keep things as they are. The greens are left wing on an American left-right spectrum but I'd say they are centre-right in Europe.

And I guess a follow on question would be, are Green issues best served by being a pressure group and academic hub then trying to actively be involved in government. Does the "broad church" work ?

There is probably room for both. You cannot legislate out of government and yet there will be a far larger number of people willing to support NGO green groups than vote greens in to run their affairs.

And a final question, can one be Right on the political spectrum and considered Green? clearily most green issues can simply be labelled as issues so ones politics would determine the course followed.To give an example I could argue from a Right perspective that universal provision of services is a cause of the poor spatial use in Ireland so one obvious course would be to undo it and price services using a market basis. Would a traditional Green not be able to entertain this line of thinking and would define the problem in terms of poor planning and more regulations are need going forward?

The greens accept that market forces exist and can have useful societal function and that behaviour can be changed by taxation. This puts them at odds with the left. The greens have supported a number of polluter pays mechanisms now that allow people to behave in societally detrimental ways so long as they pay for it. You are free to drive a high emitting vehicle if you pay 2100/year motor tax and 36% VRT and 130% fuel tax.

In general the left and right wing party sign up to most of the green agenda but priority is everything. 'Yes, we want to bring in this green policy but not if it affects unionised workers or imposes a cost on business or creates any new taxes...'

The most right wing element of green policy is a shift of taxation away from income taxes to consumption and pollution taxes.

As regards authoritarianism and planning: planning in urban areas is already extremely authoritarian. Planners determine through zoning exactly where building takes place and how much is built and what form it takes - right down to planning conditions specifying paint colours and surface textures. Rural planning is looser because there are fewer neighbours to be affected. The greens are seeking changes to planning rules rather than stricter planning.

edit:
Ballymun and Tallaght are both low density exurban developments constructed for housing very poor unemployed people apart from the middle and working classes. They are nasty failed experiments in excluding people from cities.

Macha

dynamick wrote: »

In general the left and right wing party sign up to most of the green agenda but priority is everything. 'Yes, we want to bring in this green policy but not if it affects unionised workers or imposes a cost on business or creates any new taxes...'

Yet surely sustainability is a human rights issue, with the imbalance in global use of resources at the core of the green movement. So it's a question of are they more worried about the lower/working class in their own country, or are they more focused on the global injustices?

dynamick wrote: »

The most right wing element of green policy is a shift of taxation away from income taxes to consumption and pollution taxes.

Can you explain why this is a right wing thing? I'm not 100% clear on right vs left economic principles.

dynamick wrote: »

Ballymun and Tallaght are both low density exurban developments constructed for housing very poor unemployed people apart from the middle and working classes. They are nasty failed experiments in excluding people from cities.

Absolutely. With bad planning comes large areas that have poor accessibility - bad public transport, car-dependency and the social exclusion that comes with not being able to drive (can't afford a car, too old, young or sick) etc. And naturally these places are less desirable and so the less well-off end up living in them. I think the impact of this urban landscape on the social fabric of a community and feelings of isolation/exclusion is vastly underestimated.

monument

Green parties, including the one here, are mostly rated as being (economicaly) left and (socially) libertarian:

Ireland in 2007 http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland
New Zealand in 2008 -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2008
Australia in 2007 -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007
UK in 2008 -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright
Germany in 2005 -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/germany2005


Canada in 2008 was different -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008

dynamick

taconnol wrote: »

Yet surely sustainability is a human rights issue, with the imbalance in global use of resources at the core of the green movement.

Sustainability to me just means acting with the long term in mind. This is the idea of not killing the goose that lays golden eggs just because you fancy goose for dinner. I don't understand how human rights come into it.

taconnol wrote:

dynamick wrote:

The most right wing element of green policy is a shift of taxation away from income taxes to consumption and pollution taxes.

Can you explain why this is a right wing thing? I'm not 100% clear on right vs left economic principles.

'Right wing' is a vague term. In general left wingers are in favour of higher income taxes in an attempt to make people more equal by redistributing earnings from the rich to the poor. Right wingers tend to favour low income taxes with low government expenditure as a means of motivating people to work harder.

Left wingers tend to favour state ownership of industries and public services whereas right-wingers believe that most organisations operate better when privately owned.

monument

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

There are problems with all sorts of living arrangements. Our experiment in Ireland with higher density living arrangements, in ballymun, proved disastrous. That was, we must remember, a program which was sugested and carried out by the government.

Ballymun -- like other places in the city and country -- are examples of what happens when you try to pile social housing into one area without any mix and then not provide anything that communities need. High unemployment on top of that does not help.

It's problems has little or nothing to do with high density or high rise.

There's examples of the same type of problems across the city and country without high rise being involved.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

If it comes to individuals deciding what is best for them, or the government deciding it knows best and to impose the decision of the government on individuals, I know which I prefer. If the government is to decide how and where we all live, then that's not a society in which , I believe, many of us would want to live.

It's not as if the governments we have elected have a good track record in dictating how and where individuals should live, and anyone who thinks otherwise should consider the example of Ballymun, or Tallaght, both imposed by a government and both which have led to appalling problems.

That's opposed to the once off housing being allowed to spring up all over the country and development of estates along main roads rather closer to town centre which will lead to just the same kind of social issues you hint at but for even a wider group of society? How about the extra cost of this in providing postal services, broadband, bin collection, policing etc etc? How about the extra pollution this is causing due to the extra distances needed to be travelled by occupants, visitors, and service providers?

It does not matter who think who should pay extra for these services, the reality is unsustainable housing affects all of society.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Ask those who live in Tallaght or lived in the towers in Ballymun what they think, and I'd be amazed if you didn't quickly learn that the government's diktat created disgusting living conditions.

Try asking most people who live in private estates built in the last few years in the commuter belts how their commute is? Try ask the teenagers of these places what it's like and how much there is to do there?

Macha

dynamick wrote: »

Sustainability to me just means acting with the long term in mind. This is the idea of not killing the goose that lays golden eggs just because you fancy goose for dinner. I don't understand how human rights come into it.

I consider there to be a strong social aspect to sustainability. Ultimately, sustainability is about meeting the needs of individuals while not compromising the needs of future generations to do likewise. So if we are not meeting the needs of individuals, then we are not being sustainable. For example, I don't think we could say that Ireland had achieved sustainability if in fact we depended on resources extracted from other countries, particularly if the population of those countries are denied access to those resources.

I also think humans are basically social creatures and that a healthy social fabric is necessary otherwise trust disappears and we all end up fending for ourselves and trying to get as big a share of the resources for ourselves instead of cooperating and pooling resources in ways that are far more efficient and sustainable.

dynamick wrote: »

'Right wing' is a vague term. In general left wingers are in favour of higher income taxes in an attempt to make people more equal by redistributing earnings from the rich to the poor. Right wingers tend to favour low income taxes with low government expenditure as a means of motivating people to work harder.

Left wingers tend to favour state ownership of industries and public services whereas right-wingers believe that most organisations operate better when privately owned.

OK, so in what way is a shift from taxation of income to taxation of pollution a right-wing policy?

silverharp

dynamick wrote: »

'Right wing' is a vague term. In general left wingers are in favour of higher income taxes in an attempt to make people more equal by redistributing earnings from the rich to the poor. Right wingers tend to favour low income taxes with low government expenditure as a means of motivating people to work harder.

Left wingers tend to favour state ownership of industries and public services whereas right-wingers believe that most organisations operate better when privately owned.

There is 2 type of right wing, coercive and voluntary. if the policy has a coercive element to it , it may have a utilitarian basis, once the "calculation" has a positive payback the policy will be seen as good. My general ctiticism of this line of thinking is that it risks not taking into account elements that are not easily counted. Maybe ethanol susbsidies in the US? and the policies risk being illiberal against a certain section of the population.
The voluntary right position is more principled in that even if the payback is calculated at being negative that route would have to be chosen or broadly you cant commit a "crime" to solve a "crime"

dynamick wrote: »

The greens are left wing on an American left-right spectrum but I'd say they are centre-right in Europe.

Can you tease that one out? are you saying they are more pragmatic in Europe as they actually have been part of government. If this is the case does it leave them disconnected to certain parts of the green movement that would have more "anti capitalist" views?

dynamick wrote: »

The greens accept that market forces exist and can have useful societal function and that behaviour can be changed by taxation. This puts them at odds with the left. The greens have supported a number of polluter pays mechanisms now that allow people to behave in societally detrimental ways so long as they pay for it. You are free to drive a high emitting vehicle if you pay 2100/year motor tax and 36% VRT and 130% fuel tax.

In general the left and right wing party sign up to most of the green agenda but priority is everything. 'Yes, we want to bring in this green policy but not if it affects unionised workers or imposes a cost on business or creates any new taxes...'

The most right wing element of green policy is a shift of taxation away from income taxes to consumption and pollution taxes.

As regards authoritarianism and planning: planning in urban areas is already extremely authoritarian. Planners determine through zoning exactly where building takes place and how much is built and what form it takes - right down to planning conditions specifying paint colours and surface textures. Rural planning is looser because there are fewer neighbours to be affected. The greens are seeking changes to planning rules rather than stricter planning.

Polluter pays taxes are worth looking at. It would hurt my head to try find a particular point in the spectrum for them, however might be worth teasing out what they achieve? and the downsides? just seen as another tax? ends up being used to employ more civil servants driving around in more cars?

I agree the planning system is already authoritarian and combined with the "free rider" problem and artificial scarcity it creates has done nothing but created sub optimal living solutions.


I'd also like to get into the whole global rights angle, what is it, the basis for it and the implications? I personally dont buy into the "space ship Earth" type analysis as a basis for our reality and outside of a higher power religious mandate I'm struggling to see how it enters the political or economic debate?

dynamick

taconnol wrote: »

I consider there to be a strong social aspect to sustainability. Ultimately, sustainability is about meeting the needs of individuals while not compromising the needs of future generations to do likewise. So if we are not meeting the needs of individuals, then we are not being sustainable. For example, I don't think we could say that Ireland had achieved sustainability if in fact we depended on resources extracted from other countries, particularly if the population of those countries are denied access to those resources.

I think you believe that sustainable development includes the fair allocation of resources whereas I think that is a separate matter.

I also think humans are basically social creatures and that a healthy social fabric is necessary otherwise trust disappears and we all end up fending for ourselves and trying to get as big a share of the resources for ourselves instead of cooperating and pooling resources in ways that are far more efficient and sustainable.

The right wing view is that individuals acting in self-interest ultimately help the greater good, whereas a left-wing analysis is that self interest is evil.

eg right-wing view: An ambitious, hard-working man wants a Porsche so he works hard to make products that people want and ultimately employs people and delivers high quality goods to society.
Or else left-wing view: a greedy selfish man wants a Porsche and exploits his workers to maximise his profits. The goods that he makes are desired by people but not good for them.

A green analysis is that self-interest has its limits in certain circumstances and requires controls to allow for sustainable benefits to society. eg individual fishermen will keep fishing until all fish are wiped out. Society needs to impose quotas to make the business of fishing sustainable.

OK, so in what way is a shift from taxation of income to taxation of pollution a right-wing policy?

Because it means poor people pay taxes for things they previously got free, paid for from the taxes on rich people. For example, the government used to collect an unlimited quantity of rubbish from each household in Dun Laoghaire using money raised from central taxation, including income taxes. Now both rich and poor have to pay the same amount per kg and per bin lift to dispose of rubbish (poor people don't pay the annual €80 standing charge). Any measure that shifts the burden of taxation from rich to poor tends to be rejected by left wingers.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

Can you tease that one out? are you saying they are more pragmatic in Europe as they actually have been part of government. If this is the case does it leave them disconnected to certain parts of the green movement that would have more "anti capitalist" views?

No, I mean that the same green policies would be regarded as left wing in America and centre-right in Europe. This is due to different cultural and political assumptions.

Polluter pays taxes are worth looking at. It would hurt my head to try find a particular point in the spectrum for them, however might be worth teasing out what they achieve? and the downsides? just seen as another tax? ends up being used to employ more civil servants driving around in more cars?

Polluter pays principle is in the Lisbon treaty and previous european treaties:

lisbon treaty wrote:

2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account
the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary
principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage
should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

'Polluter pays' dissuades people from externalising their environmental costs on others. For example if you run a factory that makes 2m profit a year but dumps its byproducts into a river that cost the state 1m a year to clean up, then polluter pays principle would have the state charge you 1m for cleanup. As a result, you might decide to make your production process cleaner, or find another way to dispose of your waste. The downside of polluter pays is that poor people have to pay. Also, it can lead to low tax revenues if for example everyone recycles and composts all their waste.

Macha

dynamick wrote: »

I think you believe that sustainable development includes the fair allocation of resources whereas I think that is a separate matter.

I do and other would agree. For example The Natural Step has 4 principles of sustainability or system conditions, the fourth of which is:

in that society, people are not subject to conditions that systemically undermine their capacity to meet their needs

or

To become a sustainable society we must. eliminate our contribution to conditions that undermine people’s capacity to meet their basic human needs (for example, unsafe working conditions and not enough pay to live on).

http://www.naturalstep.org/the-system-conditions

If it isn't about meeting basic human needs, what is it all about? Forget about future generations, forget about people - with this logic we should simply exploit as much resources as possible to ensure we meet our own wants/needs. The very concept of sustainability is to ensure that others can meet their needs..

How do you separate needs out of the concept of sustainability?

bonkey

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

There are problems with all sorts of living arrangements. Our experiment in Ireland with higher density living arrangements, in ballymun, proved disastrous. That was, we must remember, a program which was sugested and carried out by the government.

I don't put as much faith in the abilities of our government to make the "right" decisions, and impose them by diktat, or by whatever word we want to use, on the rest of us.

That, though, is surely a lack of faith in the (democratically elected) government, rather than a lack of faith in the basic principle of government making decisions on behalf of society.

If it comes to individuals deciding what is best for them, or the government deciding it knows best and to impose the decision of the government on individuals, I know which I prefer.

Lets take an extreme example...

I decide that the best way for me to get rid of my rubbish is to dump it out of my car, whilst driving through the countryside.

Do you agree that I should not only have this right, but that it is a preferable situation to allow me to make this decision then to have someone form policy which says that this is unacceptable?

If you think that you (individually) or society (in general) are better served by me having the freedom to make such choices, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Conversely, if that's not what your'e suggesting, then I think we can agree that we are only disagreeing on where the line is drawn in terms of what the government can and should "dictate" to us.

I don't believe for a second that the ideal situation is where government cannot, in principle, form policy for society. I believe, rather, that it is a question of what constitutes good policy.

When it comes to "paying our way" I'm not really sure what that means. Who decides we are not paying our way, and who decides how much more we should pay, and in what form we should pay it?

When you say "we" , I assume you mean what's called "the west". If so, by buying goods now manufactured in, for example, China and India, I'd say we are helping them to employ people and help those economies.

The cheapest way for you to get rid of yoru rubbish is probably to dump it at the side of the road somewhere. What you are doing, though, is creating a cost for someone else. Either someone else pays to clean up your rubbish, or society pays indirectly by having a dirtied environment.

In effect, if you were to dump your rubbish at the side of the road, it would incur the lowest individual cost for you...but would incur societal costs. In effect, you wouldn't be paying your fair share for the safe and correct management of your waste.

Abstracting that slightly, every form of pollution we generate as individuals can be viewed similarly. It incurs a cost...and in many cases they are costs that the polluter is not paying. The richer we are, the more we tend to consume, and the more waste and pollution we tend to generate. In many of these cases, however, we get to just dump that pollution at the side of the proverbial road, rather than paying our fair share for it.

If we were paying our fair share, then we couldn't afford to produce as much pollution. For some people this is understandably unpalatable, because it means that they have to give up things they've gotten used to. From another perspective, however, its little different to a business complaining that it won't be as profitable any more if it has to stop dumping its industrial runoff into the river, and pay to have it properly managed instead.

Just as I believe its reasonable for a government to tell a business that its not acceptable for it to be polluting the environment, I believe that its reasonable for a government to say something similar to individuals. I suspect you agree with the principle, and that (as in the case above) where we really differ is in the question of where it is reasonable to draw the lines.

Please don't get me wrong...I'll readily agree that bad policy isn't any road to a solution. However, I don't believe that the correct reaction to bad policy is to say that we shouldn't have policy at all...that it is wrong for a government to define policy in the first place. Rather, I believe the solution lies in building momentum to agree on and work towards good policy.

dynamick

All political philosophies aim to make the world a better place. Political philosphies differ in how they believe that goal should be achieved and exactly what form 'a better place' would take.

The left wing vision is of a world where everyone has an equal amount of resources sufficient for their needs and this vision is to be achieved by redistribution of wealth and ownership of resources by the state.

The right wing vision is of a world where everyone has enough to meet their basic needs but some people have far more than they need. This vision is to be achieved by allowing people to profit from hard work and make their own decisions as to how to invest their resources.

The green vision is of a world where everyone has a high quality of life. This vision is to be achieved by placing more value on the natural environment.

Sustainable development just means that we don't act in a way that works for the benefit of society only in the short term at the expense of the long term.

Macha

dynamick wrote: »

The right wing vision is of a world where everyone has enough to meet their basic needs but some people have far more than they need. This vision is to be achieved by allowing people to profit from hard work and make their own decisions as to how to invest their resources.

I understand this but I don't see how it clashes with what I've written earlier. I have been making reference to "basic human needs" as a fundamental principle of sustainability.

In the right-wing version of sustainability that you describe here, this is also present.

I'm aware that my concept of re-distribution of wealth is "left" but meeting basic human needs is both on left and right side - unless we move into the sort of "survival of the fittest" seen under fascism.

dynamick

where do you draw the line between needs and wants?

a desire to meet basic human needs is common to all political persuasions.

Macha

dynamick wrote: »

where do you draw the line between needs and wants?

Uh oh...you opened the can of worms...

I think if we use Maslow, just even achieving the bottom two levels for many people seems impossible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Marcelproust

monument wrote: »

Try asking most people who live in private estates built in the last few years in the commuter belts how their commute is? Try ask the teenagers of these places what it's like and how much there is to do there?

Reading this thread, the difference appears to be that those who bought houses in private estates, and those who were bundled off to Ballymun or Tallaght, is choice.

Those who were "relocated" to Tallaght or Ballymun had no choice, those who bought privately did so out of choice.

Are you suggesting that those who you are thinking of, and who bought in private estates, would have been happier if the government had forced them to live where the government chose for them, and in the type of dwelling the government chose for them?

monument

Marcelproust wrote: »

Reading this thread, the difference appears to be that those who bought houses in private estates, and those who were bundled off to Ballymun or Tallaght, is choice.

Those who were "relocated" to Tallaght or Ballymun had no choice, those who bought privately did so out of choice.

Actually you'll find that many of the people who bought privately had little choice other than living in one location with a long commute or another location with a long commute. Many will say they had little choice, others will deny it, and sure some will be fine with it because there was nothing better. But there was little choice.

They were priced out of Dublin and other centres because of a seriously lack of housing being built close to where it was needed. And when it was being build it was only available at a premium.

In addition, apartment size standards in have been low until very recently. Better sized apartments have only come on stream in the last three years.

Marcelproust wrote: »

Are you suggesting that those who you are thinking of, and who bought in private estates, would have been happier if the government had forced them to live where the government chose for them, and in the type of dwelling the government chose for them?

Again, you seem to be suggesting they had a lot of choice in where they lived which does not seem to be the case.

It was bad government control which allowed speculators hold on to land in key areas, bad control which allowed low standard and small apartments for so long, and it was bad planning which allowed housing to build in areas unsuitably far away from areas people worked in. Furthermore, there's a continuing lack of provisions many of these areas.

Marcelproust

monument wrote: »

Actually you'll find that many of the people who bought privately had little choice other than living in one location with a long commute or another location with a long commute. Many will say they had little choice, others will deny it, and sure some will be fine with it because there was nothing better. But there was little choice.

There is a difference in feeling one had little choice, and being told by the government that you are being relocated, whether you like it or not.

Of course there are many who felt they had little choice and bought at inflated prices. For them to buy was a choice, and to buy where they did was a choice. The fact that the choice that was made is now appearing to be a less than good choice does not take from the fact that it was their choice.

In any case, it seems to be taking us away from the argument as to whether its better for society to have choices as to where and how they choose to live, or whether it is more desirable for the government of the day to take this choice away and tell everyone how and where they are to live.

monument wrote: »

They were priced out of Dublin and other centres because of a seriously lack of housing being built close to where it was needed. And when it was being build it was only available at a premium.

Ironically, it was because thay and so many others were making the same choices that drove the prices up. The housing market is a market, and it only works if there is a buyer and a seller. A further irony is that our government came to rely on the taxes from new houses, so they were reluctant to put the brakes to the golden goose. This is the same government that others think is better placed to tell the rest of us where and how we can live!

monument wrote: »

Again, you seem to be suggesting they had a lot of choice in where they lived which does not seem to be the case.

I’m suggesting no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to do anything. They chose to buy when and where they did, and if some now regret that decision, then that’s their prerogative.

monument wrote: »

It was bad government control which allowed speculators hold on to land in key areas, bad control which allowed low standard and small apartments for so long, and it was bad planning which allowed housing to build in areas unsuitably far away from areas people worked in. Furthermore, there's a continuing lack of provisions many of these areas.

What would you have had the government do? Legislate to take the land from those who were speculating? As we have seen, many speculators have been bankrupted due to the fact that no one now wants to buy their land due to there being an excess of housing.

No one was forced to buy the low standard or small apartments, and that some chose to buy them is their business. Why we should legislate to stop them being built, and to stop individuals buying them once they had been built, seems to me a step too far.

It seems to many that the reason some are now regretting their decisions to buy property 50 miles away from where they work, or to have bought small low standard apartments, was that they bought them in an attempt to themselves become another group of the very speculators about which you speak, and sell their properties in the future and make money out of them.

There is nothing wrong with that, as money makes the world go around, but when it doesn’t happen as they hoped for and they are disappointed that their properties actually lose money, then that’s the other side of the coin.

Investments can go up as well as down, as the ads keep telling us, and just because some have bought property which has not proved a good investment is sad for them. But it is, and was, their decision.



The two positions are whether it is (i) better to let individuals choose themselves where and how they want to live or (ii) better for the government to give all of us no choice and tell us where and how we have to live.



For me, I prefer to choose option (i), even if it means some will make less than good choices.

bonkey

Marcelproust wrote: »

In any case, it seems to be taking us away from the argument as to whether its better for society to have choices as to where and how they choose to live, or whether it is more desirable for the government of the day to take this choice away and tell everyone how and where they are to live.

Surely thats a bit of a strawman, though?

The government have never tried to tell everyone where they are to live, nor does it appear likely that they will do so.

Regarding how we live, the governent has always had influence there. After all, that's part of what a government is for.

monument

Marcelproust wrote: »

There is a difference in feeling one had little choice, and being told by the government that you are being relocated, whether you like it or not.

Of course there are many who felt they had little choice and bought at inflated prices. For them to buy was a choice, and to buy where they did was a choice. The fact that the choice that was made is now appearing to be a less than good choice does not take from the fact that it was their choice...

Yes, there are many who felt they had little choice and bought at inflated prices. And, yes, for them to buy was a choice. But how much of a choice was there really? I would be critical of buyers (to generalise: the later they got in and the more crazy prices they paid, the more I'd be critical), but it was not their fault along. The rental market would not have been able to sustain people, what did you expect everybody to do? Live in their parents house for years and years until the problem sorted it self out?

It was a market is not an excuse. Do you have many examples large scale, badly or unregulated markets working well without them falling apart sooner or later?

Marcelproust wrote: »

I’m suggesting no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to do anything. They chose to buy when and where they did, and if some now regret that decision, then that’s their prerogative.

And who "held a gun" to the head of the people who moved into Ballymun etc?

The choice was to buy where property was affordable, or not to buy it at all. But for many people, there was little to no choice on location. Buying in locations closer to employment centres was just not practical for many.

Marcelproust wrote: »

What would you have had the government do? Legislate to take the land from those who were speculating? As we have seen, many speculators have been bankrupted due to the fact that no one now wants to buy their land due to there being an excess of housing.

IF there is nothing wrong with the government using compulsory purchase orders to buy up peoples homes to make way for motorways, roads, metros, railway lines, then surely there's nothing wrong with government buying up empty land nearer to cities to allow those who are willing to build to build?

Marcelproust wrote: »

No one was forced to buy the low standard or small apartments, and that some chose to buy them is their business. Why we should legislate to stop them being built, and to stop individuals buying them once they had been built, seems to me a step too far.

What do you mean "a step too far"? Building standards is a step too far?

First, on standards: Building standards for all sort of housing is a key part of our planning law. I'm unsure what you mean by "a step too far", building standards improvements have led to improvements in quality of life, safety, accessibility, energy efficiency etc.

Secondly, size: It has been now well accepted that the sizes of nearly all apartments being built were unsuitable for any think but single people or really small families. This is just another element of the reasons people had no choice other than to buy housing far away from where they work.

Marcelproust wrote: »

It seems to many that the reason some are now regretting their decisions to buy property 50 miles away from where they work, or to have bought small low standard apartments, was that they bought them in an attempt to themselves become another group of the very speculators about which you speak, and sell their properties in the future and make money out of them.

There is nothing wrong with that, as money makes the world go around, but when it doesn’t happen as they hoped for and they are disappointed that their properties actually lose money, then that’s the other side of the coin.

Investments can go up as well as down, as the ads keep telling us, and just because some have bought property which has not proved a good investment is sad for them. But it is, and was, their decision.

Many bought at unreasonable prices, and I agree foolishly so, but there is little proof that they were buying to become speculators.

Marcelproust wrote: »

The two positions are whether it is (i) better to let individuals choose themselves where and how they want to live or (ii) better for the government to give all of us no choice and tell us where and how we have to live.

For me, I prefer to choose option (i), even if it means some will make less than good choices.

Where, or, maybe, when do you come from? The Wild West around 1890?

Both of your choices are unrealistic extremes. Somewhere in the middle ground is where reality is.

Macha

Marcelproust wrote: »

The two positions are whether it is (i) better to let individuals choose themselves where and how they want to live or (ii) better for the government to give all of us no choice and tell us where and how we have to live.

For me, I prefer to choose option (i), even if it means some will make less than good choices.

Why do you depict it as a black-and-white A or B scenario? The level of national or local government in planning controls is a sliding scale.

Personally, I don't see the point of absolute freedom - even in Ireland, where there was nothing like absolute freedom, people managed to completely mess up our urban landscape, literally building us into a cul-de-sac. The huge ramifications of this will have to be dealt with by a number of future generations.

And I don't know of any country on earth that gives its citizens absolute freedom to build when and how they want. It's a crazy idea.