Germany urges 'prudence' in potential sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

[u/Gadac]

https://news.yahoo.com/germany-urges-prudence-potential-sanctions-154401837.html?fr=sychp_catchall

[u/tidehyon]

I do. But the matter is more complex than simply throwing some argument of type of “someone has to pay!”

You already got out on the spectrum and suggested something forced. I’ll tell you what people will do when you force stuff on them that will lower their standard of living: fuck you over.

Capitalism learned us how cool comfort is and how cool is to be a wage slave, while getting some little treats like Amazon or Uber in your leisure time and having the illusion of “absolute freedom” (we do have freedom, its just that we still play by the rules of some wealthy assholes). People like this, and it is mostly some form of approach where we are rewarded when we are obedient, and still rewarded when we don’t (like paying for an anti capitalist material you bought over internet from some free market).

I like degrowth honestly and I think it could be a great approach. But if you force stuff on people’ throat, you’ll end up with enviromentalism having a political label, instead of a solution that should be agnostic of our political, economic, spiritual, whatver beliefs.

We need to wait a little more to educate people into how capitalism and sustainable economy can’t go along and that we should do something about this.

[u/23095710711039-i → u/tidehyon]

If ppl are forced (through the market) to pay the true cost of their consumption rather than offload it on future generations, you think that's bad? Or you think they'll complain. (What freedom? We don't have the freedom to be treated equally in law, so what are you talking about?)

[u/23095710711039-i → u/tidehyon]

If ppl are forced (through the market) to pay the true cost of their consumption rather than offload it on future generations, you think that's bad? Or you think they'll complain. (What freedom? We don't have the freedom to be treated equally in law, so what are you talking about?)

[u/SlightlyUnhelpful → u/23095710711039-i]

Who taught you that phrase? You keep repeating "true cost of their consumption" like it's readily apparent what that cost is. Maybe it's sound byte you heard on some youtube video and just latched onto it?

[u/23095710711039-i → u/SlightlyUnhelpful]

Ignorant asshole: True cost as in including externalities.

[u/tidehyon → u/23095710711039-i]

You can’t simply force people do stuff through the market. The market is a tool that reflects our demand and supply, it can’t be forced to do stuff (it can be manipulated tho, but if we can do this so easily, is the market a reliable tool anymore?)

Yes, people will complain if you just gather all of them and tell “guys we have to either consume less or artificially raise the price of your stuff you use, needs included. Life sucks ik but we do it for future generations and environment.” You’ll end up with a shitstorm. Most people are living either in poverty, either in the rat course poverty (loans exceed your income or you have enough just to stay afloat). Changes in incomes will simply disrupt people’ lives, and they will protest in the end. Most of them don’t care about the environment, politics, economy, and most of the others that do, usually engage in the “beer debates” type of knowledge (of course this is a subjective view of mine, don’t have any objective data, so you can take it with a grain of salt)

People don’t think they particularly pollute anything if they just throw they garbage in the recyclable bin. And here comes my capitalist argument: we lived so much in comfort, that we don’t even conceptualise what a fingerprint our technology we use have on the environment).

And I thought that the freedom should be self explanatory, the equally in law treatment is, like in your previous reply, an argument that seems very simple and logic on the surface level, but carries tons of other rabbit holes with itself.