The video was created by Annie Leonard, a former Greenpeace employee and an independent lecturer who paints a picture of how American habits result in forests being felled, mountaintops being destroyed, water being polluted and people and animals being poisoned.

Apparently the video quickly spread among teachers who,

recommended it to one another as a brief, provocative way of drawing students into a dialogue about how buying a cellphone or jeans could contribute to environmental devastation.

Here is a quote from the short 20-minute video.

We’ll start with extraction, which is a fancy word for natural resource exploitation, which is a fancy word for trashing the planet. What this looks like is we chop down the trees, we blow up mountains to get the metals inside, we use up all the water and we wipe out the animals.

I think it is good to express some of the negatives about negative externalities associated with consumption , but to con a small child into believing that having stuff makes them bad isn’t helpful for the long term health of our environment. Further the political, moral, and economic knowledge needed to fully understand this issue takes more than 20 minutes to digest. I spent a few years studying and thinking about it all.

Feeling that we are inherently unable to take care of ourselves, that what we do and how we consume is wrong creates a fundamental doubt in humans. This doubt may result in development of a person who thinks that humans are bad, that their actions are wrong, which may at best create self-loathing problems, and at the worst create a person who doesn’t think humans can do good things. Its essential for survival to consume, so if its bad, then me pursuing what is in my interest, surviving, is bad. That’s a bit mixed up.

Short videos used as propaganda, propagates a reactionary mind, which isn’t beneficial to the conversation of taking care of our environment. Jerk-knee reactions, like “plastics are bad because they are from oil” is determinant. What about plastics that save lives like IV bags?

Find out more about the video at http://www.storyofstuff.com/.

The above link is a pretty neat little overview of the Philosophy of Liberty. So those who have ever had an interest in what my political views are, watch this clip.

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” -Theodore Roosevelt

This was delivered to Sorbonne Paris April 23, 1910. Another portion of the speech is aimed specifically at cynics.

“Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt.”

And on education and the moral makeup of a man, “We must ever remember that no keenness and subtleness of intellect, no polish, no cleverness, in any way make up for the lack of the great solid qualities. Self restraint, self mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution – these are the qualities which mark a masterful people.”

This quote is highly relative to the last post and Jason’s comment, “Much of the discussion about socialism and individualism is entirely pointless, because of the failure to agree on terminology. It is not good to be a slave of names. I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action.” Although I would add that citizens acting together and action by the State are two completely different methods to organize action, and the benefits and costs of each should be further discussed, before hasty action is taken.

This is a great point on providing help to others, “Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.”

Click here to read the whole speech.

The speech includes some great points that are relative to citizens of the US almost 100 years later.

Technorati Tags: Theodore Roosevelt, Sorbonne Paris, socialism, individualism

I will attempt to respond to some of Jason’s comments, but encourage the reader to read his full comment before continuing with this entry to make sure you are understanding what is being said in context of the discussion.

Jason noted that, “In making such evaluations, it is important for you to recognize that even an unregulated market will never truly be “unregulated.” As we spoke about, the self-interest of market participants generates what we will call “private” market regulation.”

This to me is an essential understanding of this broader question. What do we want to govern our markets. I would rather the self-interest of men govern themselves, instead of the self-interest of bureaucrats to govern men. Bureaucrats have their own interest, and among them is to be re-elected, which takes more donations from wealthy lobbyist and temporary appeal to emotional issues of their constituents. I would rather a simple man make decisions for himself based on his own self-interest, than a ‘elected’ official making a decision for millions of people who all have diverse interests that do not align with the interests of the politician or with each other.

Furthermore on this issue, I see society as three branches. The market, the moral, and the political. Often times people confuse what the roles of these three branches should be. The market should allocate resources efficiently and effectively, the moral should instill moral values in all of us, and the political should be there for only things that neither the moral nor the market sphere can provide.

This fits into Jason’s comment that, “if private market regulation is effective, then government regulation is at best unnecessary.”

I fully agree with him, if the market is regulating things properly then government regulation is unnecessary and to further the thought, it can decrease efficiency of the market and create broader social harm.

Jason also noted that, “Since the one-size-fits-all approach isn’t appropriate, maybe we could offer businesses a choice between seeking the benefits and accepting the burdens of government regulation, or forgoing those benefits and avoiding those burdens by transacting in financial markets that are only privately regulated.”

This I also agree with, however would replace government regulation with market regulation. If a group of businesses want to form a trade organization that will better ‘regulate’ their actions than all the better. The best example of this is Underwriters Laboratories. This is a non-governmental organization that ‘regulates’ any and most all electronic devices to make sure people do not get shocked or killed. It’s to the electronic industry like the FDA is to the food and drug industry, minus the US government. This is an example of how companies can create an organization to monitor the actions of each other, and make sure that electronic equipment comply with the standards set by the society. These companies are transacting in a market that is only ‘[privately regulated' but it is being regulated efficiently and to the benefit of both producers and consumers (consumers don't get shocked producers don't get sued).

Jason's last comment is best described is misguided trust in our government. "Either way, there has to be regulations and the only way to make sure everyone is playing fair and competing on the same level is for the government to step in and create a standard across the board."

This assumes as one of its premises that the government can 1) know what it means to play fair and competing, 2) has the incentive to act on this knowledge, 3) can act on this knowledge without undue consequences, and 4) that whatever standard they create is optimal. I can not support any of these premises. 1) The only people to know what is fair are the parties that are entering into a contract (e.g. I offer to pay you $4 an hour to work and you agree as opposed to the government forcing us to agree to other terms) 2) see discussion about incentive above and see Wikipedia on Public Choice Theory 3) regulation of illegal drugs has resulted in us spending in 2000 40 billion a year and creating an organized crime industry of 400 billion a year there are tons of secondary consequences often never mentioned in the political debates 4) what is optimal is not precise neither will it ever be truly known this is why I look at the reasons behind something or the reason to act, rather than the result of that action. I could give money to the poor and think that I have helped someone, or the real result could of been to help him afford a gun to kill his whole family. But who knows maybe we are better off because he took his genes out of the pool. See understanding and judging the ends are harder than having a moral theory that simply supports the underlying reason to act. I think acting in ones self-interest is best since it is at least making that person happy( as long as this action doesn’t take away someone else right to act in their self-interest). This is irregardless of the ‘consequences’ or of what is optimal.

And know I am getting too far off target. So Jason Newmanthanks for posting your comment, and keep them coming. If anything we have fulfilled our duty to our self-interest, since we acted on what makes us happy. And I’ll buy you two beers.

Technorati Tags: market regulation, Underwriters Laboratories, Public Choice Theory, illegal drugs, organized crime, Jason Newman

It was a sad result, grocery stores are still not allowed to sell wine. I was a disappointed that people here thought the government can protect us from kids drinking and driving (the main argument to keep wine out of grocery stores), better than, well, I don’t know how about a family or morals, or a sense of what is right. Is the world so bad, that we can’t allow wine in grocery stores. I don’t think so, and I don’t see any rational evidence that proves otherwise.

So I’m moving to place where people have better faith in others, and don’t depend on someone else to watch out for their kids and their families. And besides look at history, any one up here read about the prohibition, yeah that didn’t work too well. Maybe instead of your daughter going to the grocery store with a fake idea, she has to spend a few minutes in the car with a stranger (if you know what I mean) for them to go into the liquor store to get some Pink Zinfandel.

Think about that one.

China has a long way to go, as does the U.S., them with development us with management of our wealth, but as the world becomes more rich, there are more resources to spend on increasing on our quality of life. And the way wealth is created is through trade. I do what I am best at and you do what you are best at (or comparatively better at), we then trade and both benefit. China is good at manufacturing consumer goods at low prices, the US is good at providing the infrastructure for trade and innovation to occur (the knowledge economy).

If we want to continue enjoying our standard of living we need to keep up what we are good at accomplishing. So support your local schools and get involved in doing something you enjoy so you can help provide not only our country with a higher standard of living, but other countries as well. If we become better at scientific research we can teach other people in other countries to do research well. They then will not only be used for sewing shows together, they will do research and build the machines that produce shoes, a more profitable position. We as the US will not stay the richest country for ever, but all of us should at sometime become so rich that even if we are the 20th richest, we have no complaints.

Two ways to become rich and remain so is to invest in ourselves and trade with other countries. And becoming rich doesn’t just mean new cars and bigger houses. It means we have more money to reduce pollution, help in our communities, pay for medical care, increase recreation, and generally live better lives. We already have a lot of money to provide for some of these increases in our standard of living, but people may not choose to follow the ‘best’ actions. Over time I am confident that we as a society will realize what provides for a happy life. Its not a nicer car or a bigger house. Its being mentally rewarded with our work, involved with our community, close to friends and family, and physically healthy.

I think one can look at my generation and see that we are demanding a more rewarding life. Knowledge workers in general are not satisfied with subsistence wages, they desire a mentally rewarding work environment. And I am confident they will realize that the fancy houses and cars will not fully satisfy them. Desire more out of life. Desire to make a change in at least your own life. Desire to make a change in your community. Simply put desire to act. And realize that these actions are ends in themselves, not means to more income and thus means to better things.

That to me, is what we can show the rest of the world. We at one time were leaders in associations and ‘civil society,’ non-profits and community groups. We helped and interacted within our community, assisted in making a better world. Unfortunately, we often think of the governments’ job to make change to do what is best for our society. Government is nothing but individuals; we can expect nothing more from them then to act as individuals, self-interest and more concerned with re-election than providing for their constituency.

We as individuals need to pick up where they have failed. We need to become more involved in our communities to provide for those in need. It is not the duty of government to provide for us, it is the duty of us as a collection of people to help create what we desire. Churchill once stated that people want peace so badly that eventually they will not allow the government to get in their way. We should realize that the government is not the proper way to accomplish many of our social goals. The proper method is through the use of civil society, church groups, non-profits, fraternities, collections of people.

The power of the government is not needed, in deed the only true power they have is to tax. What is needed is the power of the people, the strength of argument, the strength of truth. If you truly believe that people are better off with little to no pollution, then teach others to value what you value. Teach them to support your cause and require not of government but of themselves to reduce pollution, to conserve energy, to support companies with similar social goals, in this case the goal of lower pollution.

This is direct. It keeps the government out of the process. Often one will hear that it is necessary to mandate action because people are too stupid to understand. There are two responses to this point. First, if people are too stupid and government is made of people, elected by people, then wouldn’t they also be too stupid to know what’s best. Secondly, who are you too judge someone else’s value system? How do you know that your value system is correct and everyone else’s is incorrect? (more on this idea later, existentialism)

Anyways, this is a bit of a rant and more disorganized than I hoped, but it is at minimum an insight into the process of what I call my brain. As always comments and a discussion of these ideas is more than welcome.