Thanks for raising these important points about rare earth elements and the environmental devastation the current extraction practices bring. I wonder if there are any countries or companies that are doing this mining in an ecologically sensitive way? Is that even possible? There are many environmental practices that do not receive prope…
Thanks for raising these important points about rare earth elements and the environmental devastation the current extraction practices bring. I wonder if there are any countries or companies that are doing this mining in an ecologically sensitive way? Is that even possible? There are many environmental practices that do not receive proper attention because so-called climate change has taken over almost every aspect of the green agenda. There are many legitimate dissenting voices that question the scientific claims about CO2 causing climate change, but they are excluded from the debate. The parallels with Covid-1984 are ominous -- the very same hijacking of science to advance a program of political control and profit. Tony Heller at Real Climate Science does a good job of debunking much of the Climate Alarmism by reference to historical climate data. Just a note about capitalism and socialism....I believe that capitalism, properly understood, is a system of voluntary exchange and decentralization that benefits from millions of creative producers cooperating to find more efficient and profitable ways of satisfying human wants. What we have in almost every Western country is a sort of corporatism, overlaid with a massive state that taxes and regulates with unintended negative outcomes for overall prosperity. Add to this the distortions caused by lobby groups, and other special interest groups, governed by an oligarchy. Angelo Codevilla did a good job of sketching the ways that the system is perverted by the elites and special interests. If we can somehow recover true capitalism (ie. free voluntary exchange) we can return real freedom and autonomy to individuals and communities....it will be a difficult challenge. Keep up the great work, I really enjoy your insights. Best, J
Yep, I agree. Humanity has some basic flaws to overcome before we can get back to true capitalism, if it ever existed, I mean, things start well, and we need to figure out a way to make them stop going bad all the time. Socialism sounds wonderful, too. It was the model for the first church started by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, but they sure had problems. Glad you enjoy the writing. I will keep at it, thank you!
Hi Karen, Thanks very much for your response. Not easy to respond to all of these comments, so don't feel obliged to respond to this. I will have to say that socialism is fine by me, as long as it is voluntary and there is a right of exit. However, all of the many socialist experiments in early America fell apart quickly, which might say something about how well they attract and retain people. Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in economics) argued that we should distinguish between the small social order (the family, the club, the Church congregation, the tiny community) and the extended order (the country, the global financial market). In the former our small band instincts are at work, and the socialist-collectivist impulses operate effectively due to high social trust and reciprocity. But those don't hold together once we move beyond groups that are larger than a couple hundred people, which require codified moral-legal frameworks and institutions to protect us (ie. your phone company doesn't care about you, despite what they say). I personally think that a free society of mutual voluntary cooperation (that includes however much socialism or capitalism people want) is the best approach. The key is that it is voluntary and there is the right of exit. The socialist medical system in Canada, for example, does not allow the right of exit (unless you undertake the high cost of leaving the country). You must pay into the system and you cannot work to find private solutions that are based on volunteerism. The result is a really crappy health care system. Trust me on this, I have been a victim of it. It is an attempt to apply the small social order ethos to the extended order of a vast country with 38 million people. Not gonna work. The reason that the welfare state has functioned as well as it has in the Scandinavians is that those countries (small, culturally and ethnically homogeneous, descended from clan culture) have very high social capital. But now, as immigration increases dramatically, the welfare state has begun to crumble. We also need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are essentially capitalist -- with low tariffs on trade, strong legal frameworks, low corruption, law-abiding populations, stable and predictable currency, etc. So the wealth generated by the free markets can finance the welfare state. I think they would be better off with smaller welfare states, but that is another comment for another day. In your response to me you imply that we need to change people. I admire this faith in the human spirit, and I do think that we need to focus on modest improvements in individual responsibility. However, I would ask, what institutions best draw out the sorts of characteristics we want to cultivate? Deirdre McCloskey does a good job of suggesting that it is the classical liberal order that celebrates the humble bourgeois virtues of personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, punctuality, civic-mindedness, and of course, many of the Christian virtues that, I imagine, you would also seek to cultivate, like Charity, Compassion and so on. Thanks for your great essays, they are an inspiration.
Thanks for raising these important points about rare earth elements and the environmental devastation the current extraction practices bring. I wonder if there are any countries or companies that are doing this mining in an ecologically sensitive way? Is that even possible? There are many environmental practices that do not receive proper attention because so-called climate change has taken over almost every aspect of the green agenda. There are many legitimate dissenting voices that question the scientific claims about CO2 causing climate change, but they are excluded from the debate. The parallels with Covid-1984 are ominous -- the very same hijacking of science to advance a program of political control and profit. Tony Heller at Real Climate Science does a good job of debunking much of the Climate Alarmism by reference to historical climate data. Just a note about capitalism and socialism....I believe that capitalism, properly understood, is a system of voluntary exchange and decentralization that benefits from millions of creative producers cooperating to find more efficient and profitable ways of satisfying human wants. What we have in almost every Western country is a sort of corporatism, overlaid with a massive state that taxes and regulates with unintended negative outcomes for overall prosperity. Add to this the distortions caused by lobby groups, and other special interest groups, governed by an oligarchy. Angelo Codevilla did a good job of sketching the ways that the system is perverted by the elites and special interests. If we can somehow recover true capitalism (ie. free voluntary exchange) we can return real freedom and autonomy to individuals and communities....it will be a difficult challenge. Keep up the great work, I really enjoy your insights. Best, J
Yep, I agree. Humanity has some basic flaws to overcome before we can get back to true capitalism, if it ever existed, I mean, things start well, and we need to figure out a way to make them stop going bad all the time. Socialism sounds wonderful, too. It was the model for the first church started by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, but they sure had problems. Glad you enjoy the writing. I will keep at it, thank you!
Hi Karen, Thanks very much for your response. Not easy to respond to all of these comments, so don't feel obliged to respond to this. I will have to say that socialism is fine by me, as long as it is voluntary and there is a right of exit. However, all of the many socialist experiments in early America fell apart quickly, which might say something about how well they attract and retain people. Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in economics) argued that we should distinguish between the small social order (the family, the club, the Church congregation, the tiny community) and the extended order (the country, the global financial market). In the former our small band instincts are at work, and the socialist-collectivist impulses operate effectively due to high social trust and reciprocity. But those don't hold together once we move beyond groups that are larger than a couple hundred people, which require codified moral-legal frameworks and institutions to protect us (ie. your phone company doesn't care about you, despite what they say). I personally think that a free society of mutual voluntary cooperation (that includes however much socialism or capitalism people want) is the best approach. The key is that it is voluntary and there is the right of exit. The socialist medical system in Canada, for example, does not allow the right of exit (unless you undertake the high cost of leaving the country). You must pay into the system and you cannot work to find private solutions that are based on volunteerism. The result is a really crappy health care system. Trust me on this, I have been a victim of it. It is an attempt to apply the small social order ethos to the extended order of a vast country with 38 million people. Not gonna work. The reason that the welfare state has functioned as well as it has in the Scandinavians is that those countries (small, culturally and ethnically homogeneous, descended from clan culture) have very high social capital. But now, as immigration increases dramatically, the welfare state has begun to crumble. We also need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are essentially capitalist -- with low tariffs on trade, strong legal frameworks, low corruption, law-abiding populations, stable and predictable currency, etc. So the wealth generated by the free markets can finance the welfare state. I think they would be better off with smaller welfare states, but that is another comment for another day. In your response to me you imply that we need to change people. I admire this faith in the human spirit, and I do think that we need to focus on modest improvements in individual responsibility. However, I would ask, what institutions best draw out the sorts of characteristics we want to cultivate? Deirdre McCloskey does a good job of suggesting that it is the classical liberal order that celebrates the humble bourgeois virtues of personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, punctuality, civic-mindedness, and of course, many of the Christian virtues that, I imagine, you would also seek to cultivate, like Charity, Compassion and so on. Thanks for your great essays, they are an inspiration.
Best, Jonathan