Those are the kinds of questions that people who benefit from the status quo don’t want you to ask. They can tolerate some limited widget-swapping, but systemic change scares them to their bones. So they would very much like to restrict everyone to widget comparisons: Solar electricity is more per kWh than coal electricity. Electric cars are more expensive than gasoline cars. An acre of regenerative agriculture produces lower yield than an acre of industrial ag. They want narrow, intra-system comparisons, not broad comparisons of other possible systems.
“Past evidence shows that it was usually only in response to huge crises — mainly wars, including two outright world wars — that the required political energy was generated to focus more on multilateral (read: system-oriented, rather than nation state-oriented) approaches.”
The real issue is universal access to affordable basic services | International Institute for Environment and Development
Too rich to regulate: the banks got away with it – The Drum – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Democracy in the Workplace? Spain’s Mondragon Corporation Shows Us an Alternative to Capitalism | | AlterNet
Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith: How the Wall Street Mafia Holds America — and the World — Hostage | | AlterNet
Already there has been considerable cross-sector convergence around the imperative of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies — which total somewhere in the vicinity of $1 trillion globally per year, pad the profits of the richest corporations in history, cement global fossil fuel dependence, divert much needed public money from other social purposes and represent some of the worst examples of the corporate stranglehold on our governments. There have also been unexpectedly bold statements from groups like the International Trade Union Confederation drawing connections between capitalism, social welfare and climate change.
Bullshit, we behaved globally long before the construct of church or nation state, and trade has been taking place within the limits of human reach since…well forever. What is being conflated here is empire (conquest and absorption of others, by violent means) and global trade. The natural tendency, I would think, will be that trade, transport and distribution will tend toward global efficiency in the ‘long run’.
If the argument exists to contest ‘corporate personhood’ then it also exists to contest ‘religious personhood’ on the same grounds.