The “green movement” and “the environment” but mostly a desire for control. Why should people be able to own private property like cars, we should all be using government owned means of transportation in our new socialist utopia.
No, you’re not hearing me. The given reason for people wanting to force people out of cars is the environment, it’s not literally the environment wanting to force people out of cars (nonsense statement) and for a lot of people, that given reason isn’t even the real reason.
>Why should people be able to own private property like cars, we should all be using government owned means of transportation in our new socialist utopia.
Given that electric vehicles including cars, busses and trains all exist, can you explain what relationship exists between the notion of private property ownership (notably cars) and "the green movement"? It is not clear to me why a global environmentalist cabal would seek to end private ownership of electric cars, which have more or less the same drawbacks as electric busses or trains.
Furthermore:
As far as I can tell, the following groups are both wealthy and powerful, and have a financial interest in opposing the end of fossil fuels and/or the end of private property:
- big oil
- coal
- auto manufacturers
- major banks (because they finance loans, including auto loans)
- the governments of oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Canada (Alberta, mostly), Russia, Iran, etc.
Can you also explain where the "green movement" is getting its funding and lobbying to not only resist but (according to you) completely overcome the influence of the above groups?
Because the green movement is largely made up of socialists. As such, the Venn diagram of the desired end result for socialists and the green movement is nearly a perfect circle. You will find very few right-leaning or libertarian greens. Almost all of them also believe in Marxism or some derivative of it, or at least some form of left-leaning technocracy. Hopefully you don’t need me to explain the relationship between Marxism and private property. And don’t assume I’m right-leaning per-say, I’m probably socially more left than you are, it’s just that I believe in the sanctimony of the individual (which is where my socially left leaning views stem from). I’m not even necessarily opposed to socialism in theory, just in practice.
To answer your second question, I don’t think it’s accurate to assume auto manufacturers have a financial interest in opposing the end of fossil fuels.
Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant? If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?
Financial interest in private automobile ownership sure, but not opposing the end of fossil fuels. I didn’t claim they’re completely aligned, the real world is complex.
>Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant?
Because money is power, are you new?
You claimed that some unspecified "They" are attempting to force a socialist utopia/dystopia upon us, and that "They" are seeking to end private ownership because socialism. You seem to be unable to articulate who "They" are, from where "They" derive their power, or who is funding "Them".
>If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?
Grassroots movements quite simply do not have power or influence unless either:
1. they're well-funded, in which case see my previous point. Where does that money come from? or
2. they're supported by a significant majority of the public, in which case it makes no sense to refer to "They" in such a way as to insinuate there is a small minority of powerful figures forcing these issues upon an unwitting or unwilling public. If the movement enjoys broad popular support (unlikely!), then there is no conspiracy and you simply have a minority opinion. In that case, deal with it.
I don’t need to know the names of the various lawmakers, lawyers, and politicians to know that they exist and to see the effects of their work. You’re being willfully blind here.
Maybe 6 of those people hold any kind of actual government position. The rest are either not in politics, former, retired from government, or dead. So ~six people control automobile regulation worldwide and are forcing people out of cars.... Right?
Then why didn't you provide a list of the ones who are doing "their work"? Given how many people talk about this, supposedly with hard evidence (that's never, ultimately, presented), someone must have compiled such a list, tied the individuals to the policies they've effected, mapped out their influence, the coalitions and deals… and if you believe this for good reason, then you must have had access to this proof.
> Kovel believes that the forms of 'actually existing socialism' consisted of "public ownership of the means of production", rather than meeting "the true definition" of socialism as "a free association of producers", with the Party-State bureaucracy acting as the "alienating substitute 'public'".[130]
and in general, I cannot find any examples of eco-socialists making the claims, or holding the beliefs, you're attributing to them. Eco-socialists are not, near as I can tell, a fan of the state, nor "government ownership".
Ah yes, we can’t criticize government initiatives and policy unless we have fully mapped out the exact people responsible for every line of law, including a detailed history of all their political views, and probably what they had for breakfast.
I do prefer to criticise government initiatives that actually exist, as opposed to ones that don't. Slotting real facts into a fictional narrative is a common tool of propagandists seeking to subvert potential opposition. If you truly care about the things you're complaining about, you should want to know what's really going on.
The stars exist. We can join them up to form constellations. This does not mean that the stars in constellations are particularly close to each other: in fact, the 50 closest stars to the sun are scattered all around the night sky, and are closer to each other than the stars of Orion's belt. Many of the stars in Draco are nowhere near each other.
Just because you can join facts together to form a narrative, that does not make the narrative true.
The narrative you've presented is not supported by the sources you've cited (e.g. the eco-socialism Wikipedia article, which appears to contradict it). You have not given me any reason to believe it, and I'm not confident that you've ever received a good reason yourself.
>Who desires the control? Can you name a member of this nebulous conspiracy?
Every level of government, the World Economic Forum and every other organization that seeks to mandate digital currencies, mandate digital IDs, impose "chat control" and eliminate all privacy. You have to have your head buried deep, deep in the sand to think this is some sort of conspiracy. It is all happening right out in the open.
Nobody I've spoken to who's name-dropped the World Economic Form in this context knows what the WEF is. (To be fair, neither did I, to begin with – but I wasn't making claims about it.)
Well I'm glad to be the first. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WEF, which is an annual meeting of heads of state, titans of industry and other various unsavory billionaires and people with far too much power. Going back decades, a lot of the most odious totalitarian policies are hatched and disseminated there. This isn't some sort of conspiracy, most of it happens right out in the open. There are a wide variety of hour(s) long videos from these conferences about various policies they are pushing, and have pushed, going back years, as well as numerous documents laying out their plans.
I have familiarised myself with the WEF. It is a meeting of various "people with far too much power", as you put it – but it is not, as far as I can tell, an organisation with an agenda of populace control that those powerful people suborn themselves to.
>but it is not, as far as I can tell, an organisation with an agenda of populace control that those powerful people suborn themselves to.
They aren't suborning themselves to anyone. The organization is comprised of those powerful people, who are the ones coming up with the agenda and hoisting it upon the rest of us.
This understanding is not obviously wrong, and we have now reached the limit of my understanding. Congratulations: you do indeed appear to be the first. Thank you for rising to the challenge.
>[seeking to] mandate digital currencies, mandate digital IDs, impose "chat control" and eliminate all privacy.
None of this has anything to do with a purported green movement that seeks to end private ownership of cars. Modern cars are easy to track, for starters.
>None of this has anything to do with a purported green movement that seeks to end private ownership of cars.
Modern cars allow autonomy of movement, even if you are tracked (except of course those with the mandatory kill switches which our benevolent overlords have also ordered be installed).
