Timeline for What policies for ecological sustainability have been proposed by conservative or economically libertarian political groups?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2022 at 18:44 | comment | added | SoylentGray | @Ivana Actually Global warming issues would fall into the direct threats to it citizens. And it would be a good government position to plan for the eventuality and what is going to happen to the citizens that will be affected. Publish that plan, and allow for the people governed to have feedback and agree to that plan. If the government did that, and people could understand what the consequences were then they could choose how to address the problem. Right now, it's an imaginary number that is impossibly large to some and statistical error to others. | |
| Nov 8, 2022 at 14:54 | comment | added | paulj | It would be great to add additional information in answer regarding property rights, the foundation of liberalism. And that as a right becomes more fluid, as well as the scarcity of a property, conflicts arise.e.g. Land vs water vs air. Intellectual property vs tangible property. | |
| Nov 8, 2022 at 10:29 | comment | added | Ivana | Can i summerize this position as: government should only ever deal with direct threats to its citizens. Anything on a larger time-scale, global warming, rising sealevels, smoking, should be left untouched because the problems it causes will disappear like horse manure from the streets of New York? | |
| Sep 12, 2017 at 0:29 | comment | added | SoylentGray | Actually Private business tends to screw up big projects just as often. The difference is private business makes sure it can afford for the project to fail before they take it on. The government does not have that incentive. In fact government is incentivised to do what ever it takes to make sure it fails less, Which means throwing more money at the fixes instead of cutting losses. | |
| Feb 9, 2013 at 1:28 | history | edited | user4012 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 845 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2013 at 1:16 | comment | added | user4012 | True, but this one is a biggie, as it delves into one of the main philosophical concepts of small-government conservatism (namely that, whether libertarians are right or not that big government is bad theoretically, in practice, they tend to F things Up BAR when trying Big Projects). | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 21:11 | comment | added | SoylentGray | Updated the post to include that... I am sure there are many more reason I missed as well. There are so many reasons not to have sustainability policies I was just trying to get the major ones. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 21:10 | history | edited | SoylentGray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Feb 8, 2013 at 20:49 | comment | added | user4012 | ... articles.latimes.com/2012/may/08/opinion/… | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 20:48 | comment | added | user4012 | Note quite accurate. A large # of conservatives object on the ground that just like many other policies proposed by progressives - the sustainability policies would have major adverse consequences that aren't currently being discussed (such as rising of food prices due to ethanol's usage for fuel and destruction of local agriculture in S.America to promote "natural wonder of the year", be it Quinoa or asparagus, as minor examples. Or super-major fires in forests because environmentalists of the past didn't have a clue how their fire suppression policies hurt long term. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 18:18 | comment | added | SoylentGray | Just a note... These are the positions of the sides... neither of these accurately represent my personal beliefs. | |
| Feb 8, 2013 at 18:17 | history | answered | SoylentGray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |