My concerns against the pollution tax movement v.05
After all my observant seasons, periods of my life observing people and trends happening around me. I discovered a problematic attitude that has been repeated over and over again.
That attitude is the refusal to negotiate.
People have limited attention spans, therefore up to this point, it's impossible to negotiate to every other living person. However, the inability to negotiate should be treated with regret and shame, not pride and a sense of legitimacy.
Every time whether it's done by Christians, Muslims, Vegans, Libertarians, or even Environmentalist, sending signals that it's good to not care about what the opposition has to say always brought about serious humanitarian issues which might beat the end goal of the cause or the agenda that they are pushing.
There are several angles or point of views on where I grounded the claim:
1. The backlash angle
2. The human error angle
3. The existential angle
4. The Risk of Creating persistent coercive Governmental administrations that would pose significant threats to the freedom of individuals angle.
Let's take for example pollution tax,
Advocates of pollution tax believed so strongly that the idea of pollution tax is not supposed to be challenged to become a part of the solution to the problem of climate change. In addition to that, they exert for its immediate regulative implementation, to the point that it seemed that there is an implication to disregard the required procedures for the idea to be constitutioned as law. In other words, they are ready to push for the disregard of the opposition against the proposition.
My worry is that the disregard would take a form of denying the opposition respectable hearings of their concerns. Which would most likely trigger backlashes against the campaign, making coercion a likely option to be used. The massive scale of coercion would invite tremendous friction against the movement making it so expensive it defeated the perceived benefit of its implementation.
Such regulation also needed to be tailored carefully, its ambitions to encompass global jurisdiction and micromanaging most human ventures would risk significant difficulties against the implementation of common solutions to humanity's known problems, naturally differs in substances and details for every demographics.
Since nobody was asked whether or not they wanted to be born, by common sense every one deserves everything in existence. This existential right should be differentiated from the utility right, where the utility right is derived from the notion that the scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy nor money but of mutual solutions, therefore in order to keep on improving the level of availability of mutual solutions in the world, the allocation of resources would best be directed towards the sources of the working mutual solutions. The utility right is imperative however it doesn't overrule the existential right because everyone has the existential right. Therefore neglecting negotiation for some groups of people, no matter what the reason, is disrespectful against all individuals including the perpetrators. Such disrespect is a threat to the idea of property because the idea of property is invoked and maintained not by coercion, but by agreements between people.
What if such tax was implemented with disregard of the negotiations? Then coercive administrations would be created in order to push the regulation. Such administrations, that are grounded on animosity against the legitimacy of individual autonomy, would be created with high persistence they would be unheard of kinds of monsters to defeat, even after the climate change issue had been controlled successfully.
Thereby are my objections.
That attitude is the refusal to negotiate.
People have limited attention spans, therefore up to this point, it's impossible to negotiate to every other living person. However, the inability to negotiate should be treated with regret and shame, not pride and a sense of legitimacy.
Every time whether it's done by Christians, Muslims, Vegans, Libertarians, or even Environmentalist, sending signals that it's good to not care about what the opposition has to say always brought about serious humanitarian issues which might beat the end goal of the cause or the agenda that they are pushing.
There are several angles or point of views on where I grounded the claim:
1. The backlash angle
2. The human error angle
3. The existential angle
4. The Risk of Creating persistent coercive Governmental administrations that would pose significant threats to the freedom of individuals angle.
Let's take for example pollution tax,
Advocates of pollution tax believed so strongly that the idea of pollution tax is not supposed to be challenged to become a part of the solution to the problem of climate change. In addition to that, they exert for its immediate regulative implementation, to the point that it seemed that there is an implication to disregard the required procedures for the idea to be constitutioned as law. In other words, they are ready to push for the disregard of the opposition against the proposition.
My worry is that the disregard would take a form of denying the opposition respectable hearings of their concerns. Which would most likely trigger backlashes against the campaign, making coercion a likely option to be used. The massive scale of coercion would invite tremendous friction against the movement making it so expensive it defeated the perceived benefit of its implementation.
Such regulation also needed to be tailored carefully, its ambitions to encompass global jurisdiction and micromanaging most human ventures would risk significant difficulties against the implementation of common solutions to humanity's known problems, naturally differs in substances and details for every demographics.
Since nobody was asked whether or not they wanted to be born, by common sense every one deserves everything in existence. This existential right should be differentiated from the utility right, where the utility right is derived from the notion that the scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy nor money but of mutual solutions, therefore in order to keep on improving the level of availability of mutual solutions in the world, the allocation of resources would best be directed towards the sources of the working mutual solutions. The utility right is imperative however it doesn't overrule the existential right because everyone has the existential right. Therefore neglecting negotiation for some groups of people, no matter what the reason, is disrespectful against all individuals including the perpetrators. Such disrespect is a threat to the idea of property because the idea of property is invoked and maintained not by coercion, but by agreements between people.
What if such tax was implemented with disregard of the negotiations? Then coercive administrations would be created in order to push the regulation. Such administrations, that are grounded on animosity against the legitimacy of individual autonomy, would be created with high persistence they would be unheard of kinds of monsters to defeat, even after the climate change issue had been controlled successfully.
Thereby are my objections.
Komentar
Posting Komentar